I read this article sciencebasedmedicine.org/in-wh… and then I watched the documentary "What Is a Woman?" + several discussions/debates about sex and gender. I wrote about this subject and I started a bigger book a year or so ago that I may finish it one day...
So...
I think both sides are wrong, and partially right at times. One side is like "There are only 2 genders, male and female, everything else is BS". These people are usually religious. The other side is like "There are many genders and people are born gay, or whatever, it is in our genes".
Now...what is trues is that most human beings are born either male of female, from a biological perspective. So their chromosomes or genitalia can be classified as one or another. And about 1-2% are in-between kinda, from that perspective. So we do have 2 sexes mainly, and exceptions that fit in-between (intersex). That's not something anyone can argue against.
But now what about how people behave? What they are sexually attracted to? Identify as? Well I could not find any study to show any strong correlation between any bio-chemical or genetic marker and any such behavior....to put it simply, you cannot look at anyone's genes, biology or chemistry and say "Ah, yeah this one likes males, this other one likes females. And this one identifies as a woman.". There is no such thing.
So this thing called "gender" has many meanings. Whatever people think they are, is whatever they think they are. Good for you. But there is nothing inborn about sexuality or sexual attraction. This applies for me, for you, for anyone else. So what!? We pick up our values, wishes, fears, funniness, from the environment. All we are is a creation of the environment. Good. Why is it that important to debate so long about gender and such!?
Anyone can identify as they wish, and fuck what they want, and behave in any way they want. If in the process they create any harm to someone else, we should focus on that. Easy.
LGBTQ TRELK GJDSNR etc. People should fuckin' relax. And also please do not entangle science with your feelings. If science tells us something, we should accept it regardless of the consequences.
Ok? :) #ŧromlive
In What Is a Woman?, Matt Walsh asks a question, but doesn’t like the answers
Matt Walsh's documentary asks What Is a Woman? His documentary is just as much of a propaganda film disguised as a documentary as any antivax film.https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/author/ajeckert/#author (Science-Based Medicine)
like this
The Ghost of Émilie and Georgi like this.
Rokosun reshared this.
Liwott
in reply to Tio • • •According to Wikipedia, there seem to be many biological factors that significantly contribute to sexual orientation.
So what about the studies mentioned in this wiki article?
Tio
in reply to Liwott • •Liwott
in reply to Tio • • •I am not an expert on human science, I definitely do not have one specific study in mind. But I see this Wikipedia article that cites many sources and that concludes
If you are going to write a book with the opposite conclusion, I hope that you are going to address those sources.
Maybe you can point to a scientific review that shares your conclusions?
Tio
in reply to Liwott • •Oh yeah I have plenty of very recent studies that show there is no strong correlation.
Basically you have to keep in mind one thing: no one can look at a human's biology (genes, brain, chemicals, hormones, etc) and say with certainty that this human is attracted to males, or identifies as a female, or anything like that. For that matter they cannot do so and say one is violent, a criminal, saint, calm, angry, depressed, schizophrenic, and so on. If this was the case, and it was reliable, then we could by now use these to identify people with all sorts of behavioral issues. So do not forget that.
Liwott
in reply to Tio • • •Maybe I do not understand how strong a correlation you are talking about. Of course it is not 100% genetics, but genetics do seem to play an important role.
How accurate is it to depict that question as "people who believe only sex matters" vs "people who thing gender identity and orientation are 100% genetics"?
Tio
in reply to Liwott • •This is what I mean by strong correlation: if we take Disease A and have a strong correlation with the genes TG and TT, then it means that we can predict who will get the Disease A with a better than 50/50 (random) guess just by looking at the TG and TT genes.
It means if you have 1 million people then a random guy and a scientist: the random guy will randomly say "These people have the Disease A" and the scientist looks at those particular genes and based on that says "These people have the Disease A", the scientist needs to do much better than the random guy. That means better than a guess.
When it comes to sexuality and sexual attraction and take 1 million people, then the random guy and the scientist will do quite the same, 50/50 since the scientist cannot look at any bio-chemical thing and say "This one is attracted to females, this one identifies as a male".
You know what I mean?
Liwott
in reply to Tio • • •Ok I see what you mean, it seems indeed that there is no biological factor that can give a strong enough evaluation on whether an individual is indeed part of a sexual minority.
However, the absence of such a strong correlation is not enough to claim that
The percentage of queer people is far less than 50%, and so any biological factor that gives a probability higher than that number is something inborn about gender or sexuality
Tio
in reply to Liwott • •Yes the absence of a proof does not mean the proof of another thing. However considering that we know for sure that the human behavior is very influenced by the environment, then it is very likely this behavior too is part of that influence.
I did not get this...
Liwott
in reply to Tio • • •Tio
in reply to Liwott • •Liwott
in reply to Liwott • • •@Tio
Regarding my question
I read the article you originally linked and they don't seem at all to defend the idea that gender is something inborn
Tio
in reply to Liwott • •Gender is a social construct. They at least understand that. I am talking about the gender identity and sexual orientation. They do say that these are "inborn". I do not have the time to send you quotes form the article, but I also had a discussion with the author of the article in the comments. They clearly do.
Rokosun
in reply to Liwott • • •All of @tio's books contains sources, I mean lots of them, almost every single sentence or claim will have a "(source)" at the end of it, LMAO 🤣
But yeah this is how it should be, this is the scientific way
like this
The Ghost of Émilie, Tio and Mark like this.
Rokosun reshared this.
Tio
in reply to Rokosun • •like this
Rokosun and The Ghost of Émilie like this.
Rokosun reshared this.
Rokosun
in reply to Tio • • •@liwott
like this
The Ghost of Émilie and Tio like this.
reshared this
Rokosun and The Ghost of Émilie reshared this.
Tio
in reply to Rokosun • •Rokosun likes this.
Liwott
in reply to Liwott • • •@Tio
To rephrase, can you point to a recent meta-analysis that shares your conclusions?
Tio
in reply to Liwott • •Oh there are many many studies. Let me drop you a few:
I have more but should I share more? May be overwhelming ....
Liwott
in reply to Tio • • •Tio likes this.
Tio
in reply to Liwott • •Liwott
in reply to Tio • • •So what is your take on all those sources you went through? Are they not reliable? Have all their results failed to be reproduced later on? Is Wikipedia overstating their importance?
In all cases, why not editing Wikipedia with the more recent results then?
Rokosun
in reply to Tio • • •Rokosun
social.trom.tflike this
The Ghost of Émilie, Tio and elia like this.
Rokosun reshared this.
Rokosun
in reply to Rokosun • • •The Ghost of Émilie likes this.
Tio
in reply to Rokosun • •Rokosun likes this.