The gay gene
- Thread starter bakaKanadajin
- Start date
Kirie_Maiden
Rope Shrine Maiden
- 5 Mar 2007
- 1,583
- 30
Hezam, you seem to be forgetting that women can be gay too. I think Dutch was referring to Lesbians doing it that way.
Lledargo
先輩
- 14 Jul 2010
- 486
- 12
My first instincts I would make them straight. Not because I have anything against gays but because I know much of the world still does, and in my opinion it is wrong for someone to to wish the discrimination and harassment that gays receive upon another. I then considered what will happen when people start trying to design kids, and it reminds me of stories like gattaca and The Twilight Zone's 'Eye of the beholder'. Humans may be gaining the Knowledge and power to play god, but we are left without the wisdom. so in the end, I would leave it to nature
abdalrasyid
先輩
- 29 Oct 2010
- 142
- 13
nice says, i take psychology as my major discourse. Im not agreeing with Freud on many of his thought, well i have tons of reason for that, even his student like Karen Horney, C. Jung and A. Adler dont agree with him in many of his point of view.
But there is one book of him that i read, if im not mistaken its psychology of sexual perversion or something like that. There was a report on his examination toward his gay patient (did i spell it right? ok continue) all of his gay patient were first a heterosexual, but later turning into homosexual. Most of them turning into gay because depression on heterosexual relation.
And i do read some article about this gay gene, that gay statistically have different size of (sorry) testicle then the heterosexual. But this statistic found to be weak and the source are come out from gay community who want to establish gay right or something like that. Why weak? because, statistic cant be an argument or a scientific thesis without hypothesis. Psychology already erasing some of their discipline like chirology, physiognomy, onylogy, something like that, it was long time ago i hardly to remember all of them. Three of them if im not mistaken, its a discipline that base their theory on statisticall argumentation. Like try to decide what kind of person is "Lledargo" does he introvert or extrovert? we can judge on the distance between his eyes and eyebrow. And what is the foundation of this super zuper theory? statistic. 5 from 10 man who have a huge distance between his eye and eyebrow are appear to be extrovert, or something like that. And this kind of theory already being eliminated in psychology because their weakness in argument.
And despite of the function, homosexual do not have any function, sexual function is not recreation but reproduction, recreation is only a "taste" of the chocolate not the chocolate itself. And homosexual do not have any function on reproduction, so if we look at it in sexual function point of view, homosexual is a form of perversion. And its not just me by the way, now there still a debate in psychology class should it be classify as perversion or sexual different orientation. And there are several psychologist are appear as a antagonist character by gay community, they call them, enemy of the gay, for example, Freud. And later the face of psychoanalysis are being restored to being more "gay friendly" by Jaques Lacan.
So in my opinion, gay is not a gene, there are no such thing as gay gene. And its not a orientation. Its a sexual perversion.
No need to be mad, we can discuss about this, and no, we no need to agree about everything but yes, changing opinion its a protein for our brain.
Last edited:
Lledargo
先輩
- 14 Jul 2010
- 486
- 12
I agree that there is no such thing as a gay gene, rather this conversation what meant to hypothetically ask, what if a gay gene were found, how would you react to it and how would you react to genetically engineering humans. I personally believe that whether or not someone is gay has a lot more to do with that person's environment than than that person's genetic make up.
abdalrasyid
先輩
- 29 Oct 2010
- 142
- 13
Well i cant imagine myself, then there must be an error in nature itself. All thing have its function, while homosexuality not appear to have any function at all to take the role on nature. In my humble opinion, There is no chance that such thing will exist, because we dont need such things so do nature dont need that for the survival.
Homosexual is like eating food with feet, and u feed it not into the right hole, in this case the food should be put in the mouth so it can be process, but homosexual (male) taking food with his feet and put it into his ear hole. While female homosexual, is like smoking without a lighter. Both are meaningless and further if we consider homosexual as perversion, it can be preety unhealthy to the psychology. In this case maybe we can fantasies what if that happen, but its not speculation on probability, its still be consider as fantasy.
Its like imagining "what if there are no male in this world, only female"
Yes i agree, also, its can be appear because there are sexual boredom. It can appear in a culture when sexual are exploit in such extreme manner, hence sexual lost its very meaning.
The function of sexual is reproduction, while the meaning of it is the most intimate expression of love. This element (love) is the one who make sexual breath and alive, gain it form and take a sweet role in our life, when we remove that element from sexual interaction, its like eating chocolate without chewing at it, u lost the taste, then some-one become bore to normal sexual intercourse, how many they eat, they always unable to get the very taste of eating chocolate, so they struggle to get what they thought they already lost.
They try to give the meaning on sexual, to gain the hearth beat that being remove, to get the tense, the nervousness, so they try to come up with something new. something unusual, taboo, dangerous. Why they do that? to put the meaning on the soulless sexual interaction that depress them. So they will think something like "hey why dont i try to do it on the street?" "hey how about try it that sheep?" "why dont i try it with my own gender?"
Its the same thing happen in ancient world like rome and egypt, when they reach their peak of culture, and sexual (also pornography, believe it or not they already have) have reach to it certain level, this boredom appear and sexual perversion grow like a mushroom. Not long after that, the empire collapsing, and another empire raise to take a lead.
That is what i think.
abdalrasyid
先輩
- 29 Oct 2010
- 142
- 13
it do have Hezam. The psychoanalysis is the most clown and jester of psychology theory ever even confirm that they can do it. But in their mahzab, or should we call it disciplines there are things call "point of no return" when the person have break the border, and loosing a feeling of guilt on doing that, it cant be return. But hey, i dont believe on such thing, if they come to a shrink, its a sign that they already consider their behavior as a problem, in that case they offer a cooperation, when they can cooperate, we do can try to cure their behavior.
Haruspex
先輩
- 30 Aug 2007
- 2,324
- 96
How about prejudice? Seems pretty difficult to cure.
- 7 Jun 2008
- 1,029
- 113
"Well i cant imagine myself, then there must be an error in nature itself. All thing have its function, while homosexuality not appear to have any function at all to take the role on nature. In my humble opinion, There is no chance that such thing will exist, because we dont need such things so do nature dont need that for the survival."
Nevertheless, homosexuality does exist; so there must be a flaw there in either your assumptions or your reasoning.
Perhaps one flaw is in your assumption that the only function of sex is procreation. In humans, sex also serves to promote intimacy and binding people together.
Btw, how do you explain the existence of gay sex in animals?
Nevertheless, homosexuality does exist; so there must be a flaw there in either your assumptions or your reasoning.
Perhaps one flaw is in your assumption that the only function of sex is procreation. In humans, sex also serves to promote intimacy and binding people together.
Btw, how do you explain the existence of gay sex in animals?
abdalrasyid
先輩
- 29 Oct 2010
- 142
- 13
indeed, judging some-one without mind the argument because early generalization is something really something very hard to cure. Its becoming kind like imposible when this one recognize themself to be a sarcastic non-argumental person. What a beautiful personality.
yes their exist, so do beastality, incest, and all those things are exist. Im not mean to be rude, but the existence itself dont tell us that they exist because genetic. We do have the same oppinion in about their existence. But things that differs both of us is "why they exist?"
Rolland u maybe miss my argument up there, but let me remind u. Reproduction is the only function of sexual activity. And yes, sexual is also an expresion intimacy and binding people.
There are things that dont have any function in life, but they do have meaning. Like a flower pot in your desk. They maybe dont appearing any function at all, but it reflect the apreciation of beauty. Or the painting on your wall, they dont contribute anything on your house work, but they please your eyes and a sign that you are a creature of art.
How u organize your plan and how the japanese place the stone on their lawn, its not appearing to have any function at all, but it is an expression of emotion, beauty, clamness. Meaning and function are two different thing that sometimes we fail to differs both of it. I can express my intimacy not only by sexual. U can express your intimacy by staring your wife eyes, by giving her a pencil, or maybe buying her a print catridge or fix her printer.
In this point, sexual function is only one, reproduction. Food function is to stay alive and gain energy, not to enjoy a good food itself. A delicious food, is something out of the domain of function. Can u proove otherwise Rolland? corect me if im wrong, both of us learning here.
"how do you explain the existence of gay sex in animals"
u know im more like this kind of question, seems arguable, thrown with intelegence manners and fit to the topic, its a pump to continue this thread into healthy discussion, then a sarcastic crap that thrown from the brainless head.
Ok i will try my best Rolland. I never watch Lion life in africa myself, but i do watch national geography sometimes, peeping the life of the animal, and in their oppinion, animal like Lion do have homosexual tendecies with his brother after both of them are force to seperate from their mother and father. Their act being reveal because they have the need of sexuality without able to find a female companion, not yet until they got their community, and having tons of female as their worker for hunting and other, they will be back to hetero.
But if that the case, lets said, male polar bear, are kill their own chilldern, can be human tendecies to kill their chilldern appear as something natural, or ok, as well? for me, its not. Why? because animal have limitation. U see dogs if they already want to do it, they just do it, they bash at u, at do nasty thing on your foot and jeans, is it argue about nature on being? no. Its because their limitation as a being.
eatyagreens
後輩
- 15 Nov 2010
- 4
- 0
Id perfer them straight because i want even more kids after them 
Jericho Desu
七転八起
- 23 Feb 2008
- 1,105
- 28
I wouldn't care as long as my child is happy, however I do want grandkids and I would worry about their safety more.
abdalrasyid
先輩
- 29 Oct 2010
- 142
- 13
i will do my best at my responsibility, to teach my childern so they can differ right from wrong, and good from bad. SO they can grow up, as a honorable person, that love truth more then their love the world and what-ever its offer. Not like our politician, tyrant, econom, our 21st century pharaoh, who love what the world offer more then anything else.
Last edited:
- 28 Jul 2005
- 5,238
- 172
This will be found to be jumping the gun--meaning, the statement will be proven to be spoken before having checked all the natural circumstances. We cannot say that there is an error in nature, unless we have something against which we can hold it as a variable to test. I am afraid that nature has most clearly taught us, that that cannot be done. Thus, there are no errors in nature...only things that H. sapiens' socially bonded groups tend to wish to work against.
We don't want to forget that there are those perfectly natural animals which produce without sex, those who change sexual function to maintain group productivity, and that sexual orientation is brain, much more than anything else.
It will be good to keep in mind that argument from absurdity gets one nowhere in the end.
abdalrasyid said:
That is most correct--so close that we can call it fact. There is no gene (keep in mind that the noun gene is a countable noun, and is being used in the singular, specific, here).
abdalrasyid said:
This is missing some very important information, and thus is misleading. For the H. sapiens, as well as some other primates, sexuality has evolved through various events to leave (especially) us humans with a sexual bonus--non-cyclic potential. Thus, for us, sex has that extra advantage of being fun. (for the cat it is simply a force-drive cycle event...no thought out of the cycle)
Revenant
後輩
- 7 Mar 2005
- 634
- 38
Always thought that enjoying sex was just a rewarding mechanism that further ensures we reproduce, and it sounds to me like the more chemistry and spontaneous sex (as in neither really planned on it happening, rather it just happened out of infatuated craziness), the more likely there is good gene compatibility, and thus healthy children.
abdalrasyid
先輩
- 29 Oct 2010
- 142
- 13
@Mars
"This will be found to be jumping the gun--meaning, the statement will be proven to be spoken before having checked all the natural circumstances. We cannot say that there is an error in nature, unless we have something against which we can hold it as a variable to test. I am afraid that nature has most clearly taught us, that that cannot be done. Thus, there are no errors in nature...only things that H. sapiens' socially bonded groups tend to wish to work against."
I believe there are something against the nature, the nature might not wrong but there are things that work contrary. And this a spesificly goes only to human, the fact that we are the only creature that make the unbalance of nature, and cause massive destruction on the earth and ecology for me it's a form of action that againts the nature.
We do a bit agree in this point of view, as maybe you don't recall any Superior Creator that design the law of nature, maybe for you nature is the limit but it's not for me. But i think we can agree with that, and my statement above is only my other word to express its "imposible".
"We don't want to forget that there are those perfectly natural animals which produce without sex, those who change sexual function to maintain group productivity, and that sexual orientation is brain, much more than anything else."
Indeed Mars, some creature can split themselves to do a reproduction. Your right Mars im with you. But they cant being divide or seperate as male and female, as both of them are dont have a specific gender. Im talking about only "female" gender. More specific, only woman, there are no man in this world, only woman. Which is impossible, or its not?Please share.
"It will be good to keep in mind that argument from absurdity gets one nowhere in the end."
It's not absurdity Mars, its call analogy, it's common use to explaining something and avoid overwhelming abstraction as abstraction have its limit.
As my analogy above, we do know the casuistic example are exist. There are many case on today society couple being bored to normal sexual activity and tend to search alternative into something "not normal" because they loose the enjoyment (taste) on normal sexual activity (eating choclate) and turn to seek subtitution into something not normal. Indeed, not normal on my understanding on sexual definition there might others do not share the same definition about sexual. So maybe before we talk about this matter first we must settle the matter below.
"Originally Posted by abdalrasyid
... sexual function is not recreation but reproduction, ...
This is missing some very important information, and thus is misleading. For the H. sapiens, as well as some other primates, sexuality has evolved through various events to leave (especially) us humans with a sexual bonus--non-cyclic potential. Thus, for us, sex has that extra advantage of being fun. (for the cat it is simply a force-drive cycle event...no thought out of the cycle)"
Indeed, but i don't recall myself as a primate, but you have your right to recall yourselves as a results of evolution. We separate on this terminology. I just want you to know so you can know.
Indeed sex have extra advantage of being fun, if you name it extra advantage, but for me its nothing then a taste of sexual. As sweet is not extra advantage of sugar.
but I want to ask you the basic question, Do sexual have any function? If there is, what is the function of sexual? I want to know your point of view.
Thank you for the fair reply. I hope we can have a nice and cool discussion like this.
"This will be found to be jumping the gun--meaning, the statement will be proven to be spoken before having checked all the natural circumstances. We cannot say that there is an error in nature, unless we have something against which we can hold it as a variable to test. I am afraid that nature has most clearly taught us, that that cannot be done. Thus, there are no errors in nature...only things that H. sapiens' socially bonded groups tend to wish to work against."
I believe there are something against the nature, the nature might not wrong but there are things that work contrary. And this a spesificly goes only to human, the fact that we are the only creature that make the unbalance of nature, and cause massive destruction on the earth and ecology for me it's a form of action that againts the nature.
We do a bit agree in this point of view, as maybe you don't recall any Superior Creator that design the law of nature, maybe for you nature is the limit but it's not for me. But i think we can agree with that, and my statement above is only my other word to express its "imposible".
"We don't want to forget that there are those perfectly natural animals which produce without sex, those who change sexual function to maintain group productivity, and that sexual orientation is brain, much more than anything else."
Indeed Mars, some creature can split themselves to do a reproduction. Your right Mars im with you. But they cant being divide or seperate as male and female, as both of them are dont have a specific gender. Im talking about only "female" gender. More specific, only woman, there are no man in this world, only woman. Which is impossible, or its not?Please share.
"It will be good to keep in mind that argument from absurdity gets one nowhere in the end."
It's not absurdity Mars, its call analogy, it's common use to explaining something and avoid overwhelming abstraction as abstraction have its limit.
As my analogy above, we do know the casuistic example are exist. There are many case on today society couple being bored to normal sexual activity and tend to search alternative into something "not normal" because they loose the enjoyment (taste) on normal sexual activity (eating choclate) and turn to seek subtitution into something not normal. Indeed, not normal on my understanding on sexual definition there might others do not share the same definition about sexual. So maybe before we talk about this matter first we must settle the matter below.
"Originally Posted by abdalrasyid
... sexual function is not recreation but reproduction, ...
This is missing some very important information, and thus is misleading. For the H. sapiens, as well as some other primates, sexuality has evolved through various events to leave (especially) us humans with a sexual bonus--non-cyclic potential. Thus, for us, sex has that extra advantage of being fun. (for the cat it is simply a force-drive cycle event...no thought out of the cycle)"
Indeed, but i don't recall myself as a primate, but you have your right to recall yourselves as a results of evolution. We separate on this terminology. I just want you to know so you can know.
Indeed sex have extra advantage of being fun, if you name it extra advantage, but for me its nothing then a taste of sexual. As sweet is not extra advantage of sugar.
but I want to ask you the basic question, Do sexual have any function? If there is, what is the function of sexual? I want to know your point of view.
Thank you for the fair reply. I hope we can have a nice and cool discussion like this.
- 28 Jul 2005
- 5,238
- 172
Hi there Revenant chan ! (hee, hee, hee...just like the old days, huh?) Yes, as far as I know, we can say that that effect has developed. I would argue that it came along after the 'cycling' requirements had been selected away from--thus fairly recent in evolutionary terms.
Good to see you get back here, abdalrasyid san. Yes, I find this a very interesting subject among a good number of other interesting subjects, and I have always found that discussing it in mature, carefully considered and thoughtful manners always help make it a more positive-in-outcome event/exercise.
I do think that I understand the emotion behind this point, and the general reason for why you may have posited such. We will have to admit, nevertheless, that in any scientific manner, we will have to have valid and relative evidences for any 'belief.' Better than that, it will always prove most beneficial, when the facts and evidences are there to be had, to adhere to them--or search them out more fully.
Again, abdalrasyid san, I understand how this point of view can arise. In fact it is very common. It is mistaken, however. This can be fully demonstrated in the exchange of debate in which evidence for the claim that the H. sapeins is separate and distinct from the whole of nature--rather than an extension of nature itself. It has been shown that animals alter their immediate environments (not only humans), and this is a fact. The primary difference which has made it hard for so many to conceptually grasp the fact that our species is as much a part of the earth as the grass on the ground, or the atmosphere held bound by gravitational attraction, is the degree, and variety of activity our big brain, and physiology allows. That's all.
Here we'll have to come full stop. In the discussion of biological entities and their functions, we will find absolutely no reason nor room to appeal to 'any designer,' therefore such appeal should be left to theological discussions--which this is not.
This may well prove to be problematic, however I simply ask now what evidence, or definition of the term 'nature,' you would be able to present so as to validate your idea that the universe which houses our galaxy, solar system, and planet earth, is not the totality of nature (for all practical reasons). (although keeping a limit on it so as to keep it relevant to this more specific topic of animal sexuality--and the hypothesis of genetic homosexuality.
First of all, let me admit that I am having a little trouble understanding part of your argument here (due to language matters, I suspect). If it seems to you that I have misunderstood you here, please do correct me on that matter, or reword your above quote so as to help me get a better picture. (also, my writing style is tight at times, so if you wish that I reword something, or paraphrase it, please do ask me)
Taking the basic concept of autopoiesis as it applies to cellular division--procreation--it is clear that at that level, there is no such thing as a 'female' label, or a 'male' label. The same is true for the zygote, as well as the cells which diversify into the specific divisions required for higher level procreation events.
THE puzzle of evolutionary science is sex. We cannot get an answer to how procreation has developed and selected in the way that it has, but, it has. What we have in front of our eyes are the two distinctions female, and male, but these labels are simply for practical purposes. The fact of the matter is that these are two points on a continuum of procreated build. (That is, if we were to put the female build on one end of the axis, the male on the other, we still have states of build between those two.)
If an organism has developed, such as that certain lizard (I'll look up the name later), where self-reproduction is the case, then we do not need any label such as 'female,' or 'male,' but will have to use a different label (and there is one).
"It will be good to keep in mind that argument from absurdity gets one nowhere in the end."
To be honest, and adhere to the reasonings of formal debate and argumentation, your earlier argumentative lines were arguing from absurdity. Even though they were analogies, the argumentation was from absurdity. Additionally, I am not saying that some of the situations you had mentioned were not true, but simply that the application for which you had been trying to use them was misplaced.
Of course sexuality has a function--which is why it is. We should not forget, nor overlook, however, that sexuality is a state/build (in that more specific order). The function, like all functions, built over evolutionary time, and builds within the developing embryo. We must also neither forget, overlook, nor attempt to ignore the facts that sexuality is a continuum of build/state. For this very reason, therefore, efforts to demand that there is, or should be, a clear and fully separate distinction--'a female is 100% in all concerns, and a male is 100% male in all concerns, and there is no overlap in any way at all'--are in fross error, and should be avoided at all costs.
Here might be a language cross-over problem, or, then again, an ideological problem, however by correct scientific classification, you and I, and all members of this great forum are Homo sapiens. Then, all Homo spaiens are primates. Therefore you and I are both primates...along with the Pan genus.
Good to see you get back here, abdalrasyid san. Yes, I find this a very interesting subject among a good number of other interesting subjects, and I have always found that discussing it in mature, carefully considered and thoughtful manners always help make it a more positive-in-outcome event/exercise.
I do think that I understand the emotion behind this point, and the general reason for why you may have posited such. We will have to admit, nevertheless, that in any scientific manner, we will have to have valid and relative evidences for any 'belief.' Better than that, it will always prove most beneficial, when the facts and evidences are there to be had, to adhere to them--or search them out more fully.
Again, abdalrasyid san, I understand how this point of view can arise. In fact it is very common. It is mistaken, however. This can be fully demonstrated in the exchange of debate in which evidence for the claim that the H. sapeins is separate and distinct from the whole of nature--rather than an extension of nature itself. It has been shown that animals alter their immediate environments (not only humans), and this is a fact. The primary difference which has made it hard for so many to conceptually grasp the fact that our species is as much a part of the earth as the grass on the ground, or the atmosphere held bound by gravitational attraction, is the degree, and variety of activity our big brain, and physiology allows. That's all.
Here we'll have to come full stop. In the discussion of biological entities and their functions, we will find absolutely no reason nor room to appeal to 'any designer,' therefore such appeal should be left to theological discussions--which this is not.
This may well prove to be problematic, however I simply ask now what evidence, or definition of the term 'nature,' you would be able to present so as to validate your idea that the universe which houses our galaxy, solar system, and planet earth, is not the totality of nature (for all practical reasons). (although keeping a limit on it so as to keep it relevant to this more specific topic of animal sexuality--and the hypothesis of genetic homosexuality.
First of all, let me admit that I am having a little trouble understanding part of your argument here (due to language matters, I suspect). If it seems to you that I have misunderstood you here, please do correct me on that matter, or reword your above quote so as to help me get a better picture. (also, my writing style is tight at times, so if you wish that I reword something, or paraphrase it, please do ask me)
Taking the basic concept of autopoiesis as it applies to cellular division--procreation--it is clear that at that level, there is no such thing as a 'female' label, or a 'male' label. The same is true for the zygote, as well as the cells which diversify into the specific divisions required for higher level procreation events.
THE puzzle of evolutionary science is sex. We cannot get an answer to how procreation has developed and selected in the way that it has, but, it has. What we have in front of our eyes are the two distinctions female, and male, but these labels are simply for practical purposes. The fact of the matter is that these are two points on a continuum of procreated build. (That is, if we were to put the female build on one end of the axis, the male on the other, we still have states of build between those two.)
If an organism has developed, such as that certain lizard (I'll look up the name later), where self-reproduction is the case, then we do not need any label such as 'female,' or 'male,' but will have to use a different label (and there is one).
"It will be good to keep in mind that argument from absurdity gets one nowhere in the end."
To be honest, and adhere to the reasonings of formal debate and argumentation, your earlier argumentative lines were arguing from absurdity. Even though they were analogies, the argumentation was from absurdity. Additionally, I am not saying that some of the situations you had mentioned were not true, but simply that the application for which you had been trying to use them was misplaced.
Of course sexuality has a function--which is why it is. We should not forget, nor overlook, however, that sexuality is a state/build (in that more specific order). The function, like all functions, built over evolutionary time, and builds within the developing embryo. We must also neither forget, overlook, nor attempt to ignore the facts that sexuality is a continuum of build/state. For this very reason, therefore, efforts to demand that there is, or should be, a clear and fully separate distinction--'a female is 100% in all concerns, and a male is 100% male in all concerns, and there is no overlap in any way at all'--are in fross error, and should be avoided at all costs.
Here might be a language cross-over problem, or, then again, an ideological problem, however by correct scientific classification, you and I, and all members of this great forum are Homo sapiens. Then, all Homo spaiens are primates. Therefore you and I are both primates...along with the Pan genus.
- 28 Jul 2005
- 5,238
- 172
I have not heard of such a discovery, and yet it sounds quite incorrect. Could you please try to find out where that came from for me, Hezam san?! Sex is in a biological level, a genetical level, and a brain level. The gonadal effects are what bring this about, and sexual build happens early on in development with hormonal 'bath,' so to speak. We have gone over this before, and I'll try to link to that thread (or posts) later on.
I also read a couple of good papers on the lack of sexual attention for invalids and paraplegics in Morocco and Iraq (I think it was, will have to double check) which were interesting. Common knowledge seems, according to those papers, to be lacking in the public domain. I do not doubt that. The matter of sexual orientation--asexual, heterosexual, bisexual, and homosexual generally build for the most part in the womb. In some cases, given certain dispositions (or degree of strength in the three areas of sex related development) a person's 'first build/state' can be altered. Yes, it is possible that some will 'learn' a different sexual orientation from what had been more dominant at birth and in early childhood. It does happen. However, there are many cases where the sexual disposition and orientation had been set at the beginning by those biological levels, and thus in these cases, it is real.
To more specifically answer your question, therefore. I would first have to see the validity of that claim. It sounds very off. Then, even if there were some way of kind of calculating whether the mechanism would shift from female default to male in the embryo sometime down the road, it will not be able to determine hormonal activation levels--that depends very much on a whole bunch of factors, the mother's state at the time being the heaviest factor to weigh in. So, no; it cannot be known.
I also read a couple of good papers on the lack of sexual attention for invalids and paraplegics in Morocco and Iraq (I think it was, will have to double check) which were interesting. Common knowledge seems, according to those papers, to be lacking in the public domain. I do not doubt that. The matter of sexual orientation--asexual, heterosexual, bisexual, and homosexual generally build for the most part in the womb. In some cases, given certain dispositions (or degree of strength in the three areas of sex related development) a person's 'first build/state' can be altered. Yes, it is possible that some will 'learn' a different sexual orientation from what had been more dominant at birth and in early childhood. It does happen. However, there are many cases where the sexual disposition and orientation had been set at the beginning by those biological levels, and thus in these cases, it is real.
To more specifically answer your question, therefore. I would first have to see the validity of that claim. It sounds very off. Then, even if there were some way of kind of calculating whether the mechanism would shift from female default to male in the embryo sometime down the road, it will not be able to determine hormonal activation levels--that depends very much on a whole bunch of factors, the mother's state at the time being the heaviest factor to weigh in. So, no; it cannot be known.
abdalrasyid
先輩
- 29 Oct 2010
- 142
- 13
Sorry double post,
note : dear admin, i will be thankful if you delete this post.
note : dear admin, i will be thankful if you delete this post.
Last edited:
abdalrasyid
先輩
- 29 Oct 2010
- 142
- 13
Yes Man san, nice to meet you too, it look you have a pretty cheerful temperament, keep it that way, its reduce the opportunity of sudden death by stroke and blood tension, I heard it somewhere.
Im always find myself more relax to start discussion with happy, humble man who have manners and respecting other different in discussion. So lets exercise, we might not find agreement on our discussion, but lets share, I hope there are something that we can learn from each other.
If you said human are part of nature that can't be disticnt, as i see you try to avoid the Cartesian fragmented way of thinking, you try to see things as a holistic rather then fragmented. So, following your statement, if human action cant be appear as a distinct from nature, as it also a part of nature. And back to your previous post statement that you state nature cant do any error. The syllogism are :
Human action are part of nature
Nature cant do any error
No error on human action
Is that so Mars san? Correct me if Im wrong.
Why? Why it have to come to full stop Man san? Indeed, I can see now Man san, we are back to Cartesian and term of discourse, it seems on and off depend on the term and situation, a scent of early renaissance. Im more into Charles Eaton or Frichof Chapra point of view I break all the border-line, because as a muslim, we always mix those seem separate matters into the same blender for a thousand year without problem.
We dont need secularism, because we look science and religion not as dualistic opposite like good and bad or logic and illogical, real and absurd nor we look knowledge as a sin or arrogance toward God, contrary we look ignorance as a sin and arrogance toward God (jahiliyah). Bit contrary in europe, so you cant use London map if you travel to Damascus. So yeah, I dont need to put anything off, and i believe it will not brother our discussion Man san. I want to keep it. Lets back to topic before it getting wider, dont let it brother us. Let us continue.
Im bit trouble in this contradictive statement, do you say that we human cant be differs between male and female but at the same time we are difference but only for practical purpose? Im bit trouble, and im confuse, im start to thinking, maybe your right its because the language barrier, I stare at it for hour and back to my daily activity with your word stick on my mind, and back to my laptop to read it, and I still dont get a clue. Why should we narrow it only in practical purpose? Do you think practical purpose is an alienated variable that dont interact with other variable like social purpose? I dont understand. And do your "certain lizard" example, is stating that until we develop our sexual function like the certain lizard (through evolution) we can fully function as androgynies? correct me if im wrong.
And again Mars san, are you forgot something? You even consider yourselves as a Mars "Man" indeed we know and we classify ourselves as a group of specific gender because our prototype similarity as male and our difference toward female. Its a clear fact.
Mars Man, i believe you forgot to answer my question about the sexual function, I try to read this several time, and try to find your answer but I fail. First I try to comprehend and understand on this statement sexualuality is a continum state/build but it is not a sexual function definition, I seek all of the paragraph try to find it, but none of it explain about the sexual function. Now I ask you, what is the definition sexual function that you said we should not forget it nor overlook? Im curious to know on your point of view, because there are possibility we have different definition about this.
Yes it ideological problem. You consider your selves as primate and i'm not, if you ask an evidence my evidence is my existence. You believes there are no different between male and female or there are no such thing that can be call male and female : androgynies, for me, male and female are clear difference, as reproduction are exist because the difference.
Yes from the two example above we have a clear ideological difference that stand between both of us.
Its also take a very long time to understand your post.
Im always find myself more relax to start discussion with happy, humble man who have manners and respecting other different in discussion. So lets exercise, we might not find agreement on our discussion, but lets share, I hope there are something that we can learn from each other.
If you said human are part of nature that can't be disticnt, as i see you try to avoid the Cartesian fragmented way of thinking, you try to see things as a holistic rather then fragmented. So, following your statement, if human action cant be appear as a distinct from nature, as it also a part of nature. And back to your previous post statement that you state nature cant do any error. The syllogism are :
Human action are part of nature
Nature cant do any error
No error on human action
Is that so Mars san? Correct me if Im wrong.
Why? Why it have to come to full stop Man san? Indeed, I can see now Man san, we are back to Cartesian and term of discourse, it seems on and off depend on the term and situation, a scent of early renaissance. Im more into Charles Eaton or Frichof Chapra point of view I break all the border-line, because as a muslim, we always mix those seem separate matters into the same blender for a thousand year without problem.
We dont need secularism, because we look science and religion not as dualistic opposite like good and bad or logic and illogical, real and absurd nor we look knowledge as a sin or arrogance toward God, contrary we look ignorance as a sin and arrogance toward God (jahiliyah). Bit contrary in europe, so you cant use London map if you travel to Damascus. So yeah, I dont need to put anything off, and i believe it will not brother our discussion Man san. I want to keep it. Lets back to topic before it getting wider, dont let it brother us. Let us continue.
Im bit trouble in this contradictive statement, do you say that we human cant be differs between male and female but at the same time we are difference but only for practical purpose? Im bit trouble, and im confuse, im start to thinking, maybe your right its because the language barrier, I stare at it for hour and back to my daily activity with your word stick on my mind, and back to my laptop to read it, and I still dont get a clue. Why should we narrow it only in practical purpose? Do you think practical purpose is an alienated variable that dont interact with other variable like social purpose? I dont understand. And do your "certain lizard" example, is stating that until we develop our sexual function like the certain lizard (through evolution) we can fully function as androgynies? correct me if im wrong.
And again Mars san, are you forgot something? You even consider yourselves as a Mars "Man" indeed we know and we classify ourselves as a group of specific gender because our prototype similarity as male and our difference toward female. Its a clear fact.
Mars Man, i believe you forgot to answer my question about the sexual function, I try to read this several time, and try to find your answer but I fail. First I try to comprehend and understand on this statement sexualuality is a continum state/build but it is not a sexual function definition, I seek all of the paragraph try to find it, but none of it explain about the sexual function. Now I ask you, what is the definition sexual function that you said we should not forget it nor overlook? Im curious to know on your point of view, because there are possibility we have different definition about this.
Yes it ideological problem. You consider your selves as primate and i'm not, if you ask an evidence my evidence is my existence. You believes there are no different between male and female or there are no such thing that can be call male and female : androgynies, for me, male and female are clear difference, as reproduction are exist because the difference.
Yes from the two example above we have a clear ideological difference that stand between both of us.
Its also take a very long time to understand your post.
Last edited:
