You are going on the premise that gays, transvestites...are "born that way." I don't agree with that. In Romans Chapter 1, it's clear the people turned from God's commandments to do those unseemly things such as put off the natural use of their bodies to lust after the same sex. God did not tell them to do that. He didn't make them that way to do that either. The people had and still have free moral agency to choose for themselves to do good or evil. But, let's say that there are gays that are born that way. Either by DNA or biological reasons. When Adam and Eve fell to sin and were chases out of the garden, God said in Genesis 3:18-19, "...cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life; Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field;" Instead of eating the perfect food in the garden, Adam and Eve would have to eat the food they grow that is not perfect and can spoil and die. The imperfections cause problems with the human being's biology and DNA. Mutations. Therefore, God did not "make" transgenders and homosexuals." It would happen naturally and to anyone. But, as scientists have said, the problem whether because of DNA or Biological processes, there will be fewer gays and lesbians as time goes on, since it's a degenerative condition. You'll have to look that up. But, I disagree, although, there are a few people I know that it's possible with. But, a very small percentage of homosexuals. It's environmental and a learned condition.
Deborah Soh rebuts most of the gender craziness in her book. The End of Gender. Of course she has been predictably smeared by the anti-science mob and shunned by academia. And she is a progressive.
I know that it's a degenerative condition. So, if we follow your logic, Adam and Eve would have been gay and so would some of their children at a pretty high percentage. It wouldn't have started with none, built up to say 10% and then start a degenerative process. Even based on your opinion, there should be no gays today. Yet, for some reason, GenZ has found in surveys to be 15% LGBTQ. Huh? No, it's all learned through their environment and education. There's also not any evidence DNA or Biology is the reason. Oh, there are gay scientists that poorly come up with these things.
The number of males that identify as homosexual has absolutely increased over time but researchers have found it is still low compared to penile plethysmography tests done in the 80’s which have said about 1/3 of adult males are aroused by the same sex http://www.robinjwilson.com/articles/Wilson - Miner 2016 PPG VT in Laws-O'Donohue Book.pdf It is even higher on self admitted “homophobes” at 54% https://brainblogger.com/2016/07/08/new-evidence-of-homophobes-secret-attraction-for-men/ You have zero evidence that it is learned The reason for the increase is people are no longer afraid to be who they are and love who they love. This is a great thing.
I think I understand what you're trying to get at but you start with a false premise. Clearly, "gender" exists because we each have different anatomies. Men can't grow a baby and give birth. Transexual women can't grow a baby and give birth. So, I think it's more accurate to say that while gender is a designation we use to identify people, subscribed gender roles are ridiculous. For instance, it is commonly believed that all women are loving and nurturing. Personally, my mother is a psychopath and I have friends who also grew up with mothers who simply could not emotionally connect with them and caused them great harm. The importance in this distinction is simply to streamline our interactions with others. Consider, for example, if someone asked you if you like watermelon. That would should bring up your own experiences with having (or not) watermelon. Well, if you call cantaloupe "watermelon" or if the other person is using that word for what the rest of us call a "lime" the exchange doesn't work. This is why societies develop words that are constantly evolving based on our social interactions. My comment is not meant to offend you in any way, but, simply to share with you a very simplistic reason why words are important. It does not negate the development and definition of words to describe where those on a spectrum fall but to highlight that language, itself, is fluid.
I will use the word biological sex to refer to the sex someone with born with, and gender identity to mean the gender the identify and feel as. For liberals gender means gender identity. Sex means biological sex, although some radical liberals define sex as gender identity too. For conservatives both gender and sex means biological sex. This is such a mess with people not being able to agree on what words mean.
Given that we have had gays throughout history, and even in societies that are violently against homosexuality to the point it was a death sentence to be discovered, how would one become through environment and education? Who could it possibly be learned from?
It's nothing new. We have lingual shifts and evolutions all the time. Look at "gay" itself shifting from "festive" to a homosexual slur, to a common word for homosexual. The problem right now is that we are in the midsts of a shift and it hasn't settled out yet.
You are talking about like Muslim countries where incest and rape are quite high. I've known many gays and lesbians who turned their reprobate minds to vile sin because of their rape and incest. There are other things that happen to people as well that shape their thoughts. There were studies done in the 1930's where the environment was a very large reason people who were gay said shaped them. They didn't say they were "born that way." But, again, DNA and Biology hasn't proven a thing.
If it's DNA or biological reasons, it's a degenerative specific cause and therefore, homosexual behaviors should be decreasing, not increasing. This has been known in the scientific community for quite a long time.
That's not how it works. First off we have the fact that homosexuals also reproduce. Just because they are not sexually attracted to a member of the opposite sex does not mean they are repulsed by the idea of sex with them. And this has ben happening with homosexuals long before things like IVF came about. There are also all the homosexuals in the past who engaged in heterosexual marriages and sex just to stay hidden and survive. So if homosexuality and bisexuality are genetically based, then there is plenty of stock out there carrying the components, especially since they are most likely to be recessive. Here's the kicker. When homosexuals reproduce the majority of their offspring tend to be heterosexual. And the majority of homosexuals have heterosexual parents. Suggesting even more that any genetic component is recessive. But biological isn't limited to what genes one has. A failure for genes to activate, or a gene on a chromosome that it's not supposed to be on (such as the SRY gene on an X chromosome, or missing from the Y chromosome) can cause different effects than the statistical norm. A male/female chimera could also easily have genes from the opposite of those that made the genitals influence innate aspects such as sexuality and gender. Finally there is the simple fact that we are seeing homosexual behavior in a large number of species outside of dominance behavior. But we are not finding it in groups of a given animal, so where are they then learning that behavior from? And if it were a degenerative cause, how do they keep showing up as a consistent percentage of the population? Now, I am not saying that there are not external influences that can alter one's sexuality or gender. I have a sister who after being raped, turned from heterosexuality to homosexuality. There is the possibility that she was always bisexual and shut down the attraction to males due to the trauma as well. But the vast majority of homosexuals have never experienced trauma, so it is most likely an innate trait, whether pure genetics or not. Besides, if it were learned behavior, I would think that it would be easier to point to what teaches that behavior than it would trying to figure out what combination of genetic and biological components cause homosexuality. Especially if those combinations are many, similar to there being many different viruses that cause the common cold.
So, your entire hypothesis boils down to viruses like the common cold cause homosexual behavior. You pretty much said it in the first paragraph that homosexuals also can be and often are attracted to those of the opposite sex. I know this to be the case as at my first job, the entire night shift at Jack in the Box were lesbians. I couldn't figure out why they acted so weird and so ugly for the most part. The day crew had a lesbian shift leader. She basically explained that sometimes she just needed the "real thing." No, homosexual behavior is simply the environment polluting the minds of people making them think it's okay to misuse their natural order. And, as I have stated the same as you, more than you think are the responses to rape and incest.
Incorrect. I stated that much like the common cold, homosexuality more than likely has more than one cause. AIDS comes from only one source, the HIV virus. The common cold comes from multiple different viruses, but they all result in pretty much the same symptoms, thus they are all called the common cold. Similarly, homosexuality and bisexuality might come from multiple causes all resulting in the same end: homosexuality or bisexuality. Strawman. I said that they are not repulsed by the act of sex with those of the opposite sex, and thus will engage in it for procreation purposes. Not being repulsed =/= attracted to. That's 2 for 2 so far where you had to twist what I said to make your argument. You're conflating some things here. She could very well be bisexual with a preference towards women, but not exclusively. Furthermore, enjoying the "real thing" as an act of sex, does not mean that she is sexually attracted to the male she is with. Sexuality and sexual activity are not the same. Straight people and gay people have both been willing to have sex with those they are not sexually attracted to for reasons that can range from power to money, to even as simple as providing relief to a close friend. I'm pretty sure that last will put your knickers in a twist, but it still happens, regardless. You claimed it, now back it up. Show us the statistics and studies that indicate that more homosexuality is caused by rape and incest. Or even if you are not claiming a majority, show us how high that rate actually is.
"A random sample of 5,182 adults from 6 U.S. metropolitan areas were questioned about incestuous sexual relationships during childhood. Incest was disproportionately reported by both male and female bisexuals and homosexuals. 148 gays (7.7% of the sample) reported 14 (50%) of same-sex, and 7 (22%) of opposite-sex incestuous experiences, and 20 (69%) of same-sex and 2 (3%) of opposite-sex sexual experiences with other relatives. 88 lesbians (3% of the sample) reported 2 (33%) of same-sex incest and 7 (9%) of opposite-sex incest and 1 (17%) of same-sex and 10 (13%) of opposite-sex sexual experiences with other relatives. 12% of 98 male homosexuals vs 0.8% of 1,224 male heterosexuals with a brother reported brother-brother incest. These findings are consonant with those of other studies in which disproportionately more incest by homosexuals was reported. As opposed to an evolutionary genetic hypothesis, these data support the alternative that homosexuality may be learned, since homosexuals do not produce children at sustainable levels and the incidence of homosexuality varies as a function of various social factors. Incest cannot be excluded as a significant basis for homosexuality." - http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/gender-doesnt-exist.585920/page-5#post-1072687579 As far as whether the incest and how much was rape, don't know. But, since 3% of the population is gay, the numbers are quite large that turned into homosexuals after their incest or rape. It is learned and from their environment. Nothing has changed since the 1930's studies.
"More people just need to be told that their "identity" really isn't that interesting or even worth thinking about for more than 5 seconds." Michael Tracey
How about you try that again and not attribute what you supposedly quoted with my post? There isn't even a link in there from the parts I quote from you. Also how did we go from transgender to sexuality?
That goes both ways really. Most transgender people would like to leave it at no more than thinking about it for 5 seconds, but then others have to stretch out that time by trying to tell them they are wrong and perverted. So the corollary is "More people just need to be told that their idea of another's "identity" really isn't that interesting or even worth thinking about for more than 5 seconds."
"As opposed to an evolutionary genetic hypothesis, these data support the alternative that homosexuality may be learned, since homosexuals do not produce children at sustainable levels and the incidence of homosexuality varies as a function of various social factors. Incest cannot be excluded as a significant basis for homosexuality." This is a very simple response from this study and makes total logical sense. Homosexual behavior, thought and actions are learned responses. This gets back to the reprobate mind regardless of the mental challenge of any part of LGBTQRSUVWXYZ...
What study? You are throwing up words, but you are not crediting any sources. The last you put up was back to my own post, and I certainly had said any of those words. If.you can't properly credit a source, don't quote it.
Having reading challenges again? Here is my post above, AGAIN! "A random sample of 5,182 adults from 6 U.S. metropolitan areas were questioned about incestuous sexual relationships during childhood. Incest was disproportionately reported by both male and female bisexuals and homosexuals. 148 gays (7.7% of the sample) reported 14 (50%) of same-sex, and 7 (22%) of opposite-sex incestuous experiences, and 20 (69%) of same-sex and 2 (3%) of opposite-sex sexual experiences with other relatives. 88 lesbians (3% of the sample) reported 2 (33%) of same-sex incest and 7 (9%) of opposite-sex incest and 1 (17%) of same-sex and 10 (13%) of opposite-sex sexual experiences with other relatives. 12% of 98 male homosexuals vs 0.8% of 1,224 male heterosexuals with a brother reported brother-brother incest. These findings are consonant with those of other studies in which disproportionately more incest by homosexuals was reported. As opposed to an evolutionary genetic hypothesis, these data support the alternative that homosexuality may be learned, since homosexuals do not produce children at sustainable levels and the incidence of homosexuality varies as a function of various social factors. Incest cannot be excluded as a significant basis for homosexuality." - http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/gender-doesnt-exist.585920/page-5#post-1072687579
That link goes back to my post #113, not to the source of what you quoted. Who's the one with challenges?
If it helps at all there are some clarifications. AMAB stands for Assigned Male At Birth and AFAB stands for Assigned Female At Birth. For MtF transpeople they were AMAB and for FtM transpeople they were AFAB. Gender Self Identity can CONFORM to AMAB/AFAB or it can be at ODDS with AMAB/AFAB. For the majority of people Gender Identity does conform but it does NOT for Transpeople. For those Transpeople with non-conforming Gender Self Identity they can suffer from a Medical condition known as Gender Dysphoria. Both MtF and FtM who undergo transition hormone therapy (HRT) and surgeries the AMAB and AFAB abbreviations apply. Post transition they are TransFemale and TransMale and the AMAB and AFAB abbreviations still apply. Not everyone who is Trans uses HRT and/or transition surgery. None of the above has anything whatsoever to do with politics. It is purely MEDICAL terminology.
We do have to keep in mind that the medical terms, and even the legal terms are not always the common language use. So it does get more confusing there alone. Add into that, common language shifts, as is happening now, and the confusion builds.
