/sci/ - Science & Math

>>8836930
wrong board buddy
>>>/lgbt/

>>8836930
Don't know, and seeing how politicized this subject is research may not be impartial.

>>8836937
Actually a semi-legit thread for once, let it be.

>>8836930
There are genetic predisposals. Genes don't guarantee anything though.

>>8836937
OP here, the reason I ask this is because it is a political situation that is using an argument loosely based on science. I am in the /sci/ board asking if this argument is on solid ground or just more political talk.

>>8836930
>I mean, if it is something you are born with, it has to be genetic (i.e. not learned), and therefore hereditary. Is this true?
No, that's incorrect. There are other (non-genetic) factors that can influence how one is born (e.g. prenatal hormone levels etc.)

>Are there studies on this?
Probably.

considering that majority of them had some fucked up sexual experience when they were young should say something
how could something like this even be spread genetically?

>>8836937
Hahah. I once made a thread in /lgbt/ questioning the nature of sexuality and I got a global ban for 3 days.

That board is completely gone. They are in their own limbo land. As cancerous as /pol/ but at least they do not leave their containment board.

>>8836959
this thread belongs to >>>/lgbt/

>>8836959
You do realize that board gets that thread topic all the time, right? Like, you were likely banned because they probably saw your thread as you trying to make a controversial thread just to troll.

OP here,

>>8836947
Well yea, not looking for guarantees, but does a certain genetic composition statistically increase the chance of someone being gay? Is there any evidence for this (i.e. published stuff)?

>>8836952
True, but I guess you could consider prenatal influences from the environment as part of "nurture". However, if some prenatal hormonal influence could cause homosexuality, then this would pretty much mean that the religious people are right, i.e. that with certain "treatment" you could prevent homosexuality. I highly doubt that this is the case, but I don't really know the evidence on either side (which is why I ask).

>>8836959
ARE YOU SURE YOU ARE NOT REPRESSING SOMETHING? GO TALK TO A PSYCHIATRIST YOU MIGHT BE TRANS! DONT BE ASHAMED IT IS GREAT TO BE TRANS!

>>8836964
Not really, OP is asking if there are any studies or research into whether or not sexual orientation has a genetic basis. /lgbt/ is mostly a board to help LGBT people talk with other LGBT people and find resources for them.

>>8836959
lgbt nazis don't even tolerate asking questions, let alone assume genders. which makes it funnier when they think people take them seriously

>>8836969
>I guess you could consider prenatal influences from the environment as part of "nurture"
Correct.

>However, if some prenatal hormonal influence could cause homosexuality, then this would pretty much mean that the religious people are right, i.e. that with certain "treatment" you could prevent homosexuality.
It wouldn't mean that at all, what the fuck are you talking about? Fetal development isn't something that's easy to control, and traits like sexual orientation aren't malleable anymore once they've developed.

I just had a quick look on google scholar, here are a few studies.
>http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0031938401005649
>http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.459.3449&rep=rep1&type=pdf
>http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/psp/78/3/524/

>>8836930
It's primarily biologically based but there's wiggle room in expression. Sexuality is mostly a spectrum that homo/hetero/bi doesn't really describe precisely enough for most. For the love of god, I'm not alluding to or attempting in any way to give credence to the retarded 844389498 genders crap. This continuum comes mainly from the varied expressions of tertiary sexual characteristics and the individual perceptions (shaped by personal experience) thereof (e.g. is it "gay" for a man who is attracted to Scarjo's face to also be attracted to another man's face that greatly resembles hers?). Much of this is governed by hormones, both at the moment and throughout gestation and life.

To really drill down on this info, you've mostly got to seek out and read papers on your own while ignoring the published discussion. It's career suicide to talk about the realities of gender and sexuality in any direct way.

>>8836969
Here is a twin study:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18536986

No hard conclusions but a genetic correlation was revealed.

They've done twin studies showing that there's something like a 30% concordance rate in identical twins. Though check that figure as it is totally of the top of my head. So people have a genetic predisposition but it isnt genetically absolute.

Like the other anon said too, not memeing though it sounds harsh, a significant portion of the gay community had some childhood sexual abuse that likely informed the sexual preference. Just as most paedophiles were abused themselves. Even normal people's sexuality is formed from infant experiences. In my case i must have been solidly abused by giant tits for years.

So homosexuality has a strong "environmental" basis. But this is not, as muslims and christians believe, a case of telling your kid to play football and spank his sister but some complex interactions we are not knowledgeable of.

>>8836964
Maybe it would but it obviously won't survive there for long.

>>8836965
Well, I am not a gayhomo man like you so I do not browse it but I had a legit question. My thread was about:

1) What exactly counts as a sexuality?
2) What is the boundary of a fetish and when does it turn into a sexuality? For example, why isn't homosexuality just a fetish for your same sex and instead is a whole sexual identity on its own. And why isn't pedophilia a sexuality, or is it?
3) If I came here to tell you that my fetish for [whatever] is actually my sexuality and I identify with it, would you accept it?

If you ask me, those are legit fucking questions to ask to the people that say that sexuality and gender are fluid. I am basically asking how fluid is sexuality? If gender isn't a binary then what is it? If you say it is a spectrum then surely you have characterized that spectrum, right?

>>8836980
lol.

>>8836985
I'd like to think that gay people are good people but bis and transexuals are the ones who took their quest for rights into a whole war against everyone not under their label.

>>8836930

Well that's identity politics for ya.

>>8836996
No it isnt a spectrum and finding a mans face attractive is literally gay. Other men dont feel like you.

It may or may not be genetic. We are not 100% sure on the underlying cause of being gay.

What we are 100% sure of is that you can't consciously change a person's orientation and attempts to do so cause dramatic harm to a person's mental health.

It may be genetic, it may be environmental, it may be a combination of both, but all we know is that it's fixed.

>>8837008
>finding a mans face attractive is literally gay
bu what if that man has a vagina?

>>8837004
I get that you those are legitimate questions, but when your board is trolled constantly with shit like "Lol, is being a pedo a sexuality?", people generally get annoyed and see it all as just another inane troll. Further, /lgbt/ generally doesn't believe in more than two genders.

>>8837004
A fetish is finding something not sexual sexual. Liking female primary or secondary sexual characteristics is not a fetish. Wanting to sit on a fence post in public is.

>>8837008
Of course it's a spectrum.

If you find a woman attractive and find a man attractive who looks exactly like that woman and you don't know they're a man, you're not gay for finding that man attractive. Attractiveness is based on traits, if you see a person with the right combination of traits that is specifically tailored to your interests, your arousal will be triggered. Your penis doesn't know the chromosomes of the person you're looking at, you just know if you find them attractive or not.

>>8837008
There is a spectrum though, otherwise bisexuals wouldn't exist.

>>8837008
Yup, this chick is really hot yo.

>>8837018
Well, what is sexual and what is not sexual?

Maybe I find kneecaps to be sexual and maybe I want to really fuck a kneecap. I want to rub my cock against a kneecap. What now? Am I Kneesexual?

>>8837004
pedophilia is a fetish
when you want little boys, it's homosexual
when little girls it's heterosexual

OP here,

>>8836988
Thanks for the sources!

I didn't mean that sexual orientation could be "easily" defined with some prenatal treatment. I guess I just meant to say that: if the prenatal environment influences sexual orientations, then given all possible control (other than genetic makeup), it could be physically possible (although impossibly difficult with current technology), to alter the sexual orientation of a fetus. From your first reference, it seems like this is indeed the case.

However, is there also a genetic component to this? i.e. given the exact same prenatal environment, could one genetic makeup be more likely to become gay than another?

Additionally, is the environmental influence only effective if it happens during prenatal development? As someone mentioned here, there is a (anecdotal) correlation between homosexuality and a traumatic experience growing up. Could the window of influence be larger than just while in the womb?

>>8837019
What fucking man looks exactly like a woman. Ive never seen a man with big hips and ass, large breasts and a soft face with big eyes and mouth. If you are anywhere in the business of liking people who could be mistaken for one or the other you are bi, or just a faggot who hasnt accepted it yet.

>>8836996
Good description. It's not career suicide at all though. Just let the community have whatever labels they want, don't feel like you should be deciding for them.

>>8837022
Three integers isnt a spectrum, its three distinct points.

Why does everyone think /lgbt/ is tumblr: 4chan edition?

>>8837004
>1) What exactly counts as a sexuality?
A predominant disposition for one sex or the other, or both sexes. This combines sexual attraction, romantic attraction, emotional attraction and aesthetic attraction. Your either lean in one direction or both directions.
>2) What is the boundary of a fetish and when does it turn into a sexuality?
A fetish never turns into a sexuality. A fetish is a trait that reliably triggers arousal in a person. A straight man does not have a fetish for women, but that man may have a fetish for feet, for large breasts, for nurses, for tattoos, etc.
>3) If I came here to tell you that my fetish for [whatever] is actually my sexuality and I identify with it, would you accept it?
No. There is no pedosexual or zoosexual or necrosexual, those concepts come from people with paraphilias. A paraphilia is when a fetish becomes a life-consuming obsession. People with paraphilias are so fixated on them that they commonly confuse them for orientations.

>>8837028
Okay, thanks for clarirication. Now exactly why isn't pedophilia a sexuality?

I see that you say that pedophilia can vary within homosexual pedophilia and heterosexual pedophilia but that is just means that there are two sexualities attached to the pedophilia label. A pedophilia binary, if you will.

In fact, what if you are attracted to genderfluid kids? Maybe pedophilia is actually a spectrum, you fucking racist.

>>8837030
Go to any orange board ;)

except /pol/ of course. They're good Christians.

>>8837027
Its a fetish, knees dont exhibit sexual dimorphism. They have no sexual attributes.

>>8837036
>This combines sexual attraction, romantic attraction, emotional attraction and aesthetic attraction. Your either lean in one direction or both directions.

Thanks for that dictionary definition grandpa but it is clear that lgbtq+zxdjwhdhuw people don't work with the gender binary anymore.

It is a spectrum so what now?

>>8837030
The left is biological female the right is biological male. I'm not saying either of them are attractive but they look pretty close to each other.

You need to stop thinking in extremes. If you see someone from behind at a distance bending over and it looks like they have a nice ass, and then they turn to you and have a beard, you are not gay because you had sexual interest in something for a moment. Arousal is based on cues.

>>8837036
> fetish for large breasts
You mean normal heterosexuality? Not a fetish.

>>8837040
>knees dont exhibit sexual dimorphism

Yes they fucking do. I bet that if I gave you a man's knee and a woman's knee you would immediately be able to tell the difference. Well, at least you would if you ever had any kind of interaction with women which clearly you don't have if you think that female knees look like male knees topkek.

>>8836930
This is the perfect use-case for a twin study. Here's a (potentially biased, not sure) aggregation:

http://www.tim-taylor.com/papers/twin_studies/studies.html

Are traps, dare i say it,gay?l

>>8837041
>Thanks for that dictionary definition grandpa but it is clear that lgbtq+zxdjwhdhuw people don't work with the gender binary anymore.
I don't think it's clear, I disagree. I think sexual orientation is an apt descriptor

>>8837052
Y, dare I say it, es

>>8837039
If you are meaning transexuals who have surgery to hide it, then falling for that wouldnt be on a spectrum if they were convincing. To your input everything was female and elicited arousal. Upon discovering otherwise all arousal would disappear.

>>8837047
It is a fetish, just an extremely common one. Some men prefer small breast to big ones. Most men have a limit of how big they want their partners breasts to be as well

>>8836969

It might be possible in the future to influence someone's sexual preferences by some kind of hormone therapy, but there obviously needs to be a ton of additional research on the subject before we can fully understand it.

The religious 'treatment' or gay conversion therapy however is antiscience as fuck and of course will never work, no matter how much they want it to.

>>8837046
You are gay if you've ever looked at a man's ass and felt sexually aroused m8, quite literally gay.

>>8837050
>This is the perfect use-case for a twin study. Here's a (potentially biased, not sure) aggregation:
not really, if you are interested in prenatal events

cloning studies when

>>8837040
>>8837037
>>8837028
Sigh.

Fetishism isn't merely the sexualization of something that's not specifically sexual, it's fixation to the point where it disrupts and replaces "normal" arousal. Like a foot fetish isn't liking feet. It's feet are essentially the only thing that you get aroused by.

I hate when laymen start using psychological jargon. They always forget that for everything described in the DSM, the mere presence means nothing. It's the degree to which a trait is present (specifically that it starts interferring with quality of life) for it to qualify as that condition.

>>8837010
>It may be genetic, it may be environmental, it may be a combination of both, but all we know is that it's fixed.

bullshit... that's probably what they said about all diseases... we eventually found a drug to alter the fundamental chemistry that causes them...

>>8837049
No, the difference is in the hair, remove that and on a non-muscular man the knee will look the same. It is just bone and ligament.

>>8837029
>From your first reference, it seems like this is indeed the case.
Sure. With perfect technology we could do a lot. But that doesn't mean that it's changable after the fact, like religious nuts claim.

>However, is there also a genetic component to this? i.e. given the exact same prenatal environment, could one genetic makeup be more likely to become gay than another?
Probably. Third study in my previous post is a twin study. Some other people posted some too. Traits like sexual orientation are multifactorial (i.e.arise due to a complex interaction between genotype and environment), and polygenic.

>Additionally, is the environmental influence only effective if it happens during prenatal development? As someone mentioned here, there is a (anecdotal) correlation between homosexuality and a traumatic experience growing up. Could the window of influence be larger than just while in the womb?
Probably also yes. But it most likely won't extend to much beyond the critical phase for e.g. language learning. Plasticity drops quite sharply after that.

>>8837034
No it's several many points. There are in-betweens, like men who have preferences for certain 'male' or masculine features but aren't necessarily interested in men, and so on. It's a lot more complex than 'gay or not gay'

>>8837066
Until we find a reliable way of changing sexual orientation, it's not wrong to say it's fixed. This does not mean that it will always be that way or that new information or new discoveries can't change our understanding.

Isn't that one of the most basic tenets of science?

>>8837066
what we also know is that this guy's retardism isn't fixable

>>8837057
Liking female secondary sexual characteristics is quite literally not a fetish. Sorry. You are using the argument "well faggot dont like it" as a defence.

>>8837068
Wow lol please go look up female knees and then shave your own disgusting knee and compare.

>>8837065
>Fetishism isn't merely the sexualization of something that's not specifically sexual, it's fixation to the point where it disrupts and replaces "normal" arousal.
so pedophiles are fetishists?

>>8837065
> """DSM"""

>>8837070
>Liking female secondary sexual characteristics is quite literally not a fetish
Correct. But having a recurring fixation and desire for particular feature is a fetish.

Almost all straight men like breasts. Not all straight men have a fetish for breasts. Plenty straight men do have a fetish for breasts. You don't seem to understand what a fetish is.

>>8837070
What's a "male characteristic". Because if its a normal feature on a healthy woman its not a "male" trait. If you like your women flat chested with a deep voice and short hair you are a faggot who hasnt owned up to it yet.

>>8837070
Orientation is a broad classification that can be broken down further into various other categories. That does not render it obsolete as a classification.

>>8837080
Kinda. They're a slightly different case (mainly because of typically different etiologies) and it's sort of incongruous to claim that they are sexualizing something nonsexual given the role the idea of innocence plays in many's sexual views.

>>8837079
Sorry i upset your fetish mate, no girl is ever going to let you lick her knees.

>>8837084
If a guy is attracted to women with flat chest, deep voice and short hair, but gets no arousal whatsoever from a man with a flat chest, deep voice, and short hair, he's not gay.

You can't bother using a classification system for something if you're not going to follow it rigidly

>>8837088
Wrong

>>8837084

What's a 'normal feature'? Does liking short haired girls somehow gay now? Sounds like you're projecting m8.

>>8837088
Everything is nonsexual until your brain makes it sexual.

>>8837069
your third point contradicts your first... nigger

>>8837090
I don't have a knee fetish. It is an example. Why isn't a knee fetish a knee sexuality?

And the reason I am angry at you (Well, I am not angry, just disappointed) is because you reek so much of virginity that you can't even see the difference between male and female knees.

>>8837093
He would is the point, he's the sort of person who sees a man bending over from a distance and starts getting a hard on as literally said earlier.

>>8837094
Sure thing bub.

>>8837099
Except it doesn't. Fucking moron. Do I need to explain why not?

>>8837095
Sounds like you're upset m8. Go listen to your Prince CD and dress up in that scarf you took from your mother's bedroom.

>>8837098
Penises, ovaries and wombs are quite literally sexual regardless of qualia.

>>8837104
On what basis is a man being attracted to a woman, who he correctly distinguishes as a woman and not a man, gay?

>>8837110
KEK this is some hard projecting my dude, your insecurities are literally bleeding into your post. Seek help m8 ;^)

>>8837115
They are sexual in that they facilitate sex. They are not sexual in the context of arousal unless you find them arousing.

Feet can be sexual to a person. Penises can be completely nonsexual to that same person. We're talking in the context of sexual arousal, not reproductive function

>>8837101
The reason you are angry at me is because you secretly want to fuck me but are so unsure of yourself you'd rather keep pretending your straight.

Knees arent a sexual feature. They're not dimorphic. You might as well fuck your dog at this point. They've got four.

>>8837117
Somewhere before being attracted to her.

>>8837120
So you mean sexually desirable not just sexual then.

OP here,

So... can we get back on topic? Is there actual scientific evidence for all the opinions thrown around here? Or is /sci/ just full of people with strong opinions based on zero actual data?

>>8837125
I thought I had made it clear that nothing is inherently nonsexual because anything can be sexual depending on what an individual finds sexual. Sexual in this case being something that stimulates sexual interest, I thought that was completely clear.

>>8837126
Are you an idiot? Several people have already posted studies. But you haven't looked at them.

>>8837126
I have a scientific instrument that can detect the smallest readings of microhomos even across the internet and ive got to say its been going off the charts every time you post.

>>8836956
What are you doing on the science board?

>>8837131
There isn't a science board on 4chan. /sci/ is just /pol/'s personal version of /s4s/ at this point

>>8837127
Well then certain things are quite inherently sexual as they have a sexual function. You cant pick and choose.

>>8837063
Bailey & Pillard (1991), mentioned in this aggregation, studied both identical and fraternal twins and found a 250% difference in coincidence rate between them (compared to a 500% coincidence rate between identical and adopted siblings)

>>8837137
Bailey and pillard probably mad sucked each other's dicks during the study.

>>8837134
this unfortunately
i will mourn /sci/'s loss

>>8837135
Do you not understand what context means

Something that facilitates sexual function does not make it inherently sexually arousing.

How many people do you think find the appearance of ovaries to be incredibly arousing?

>>8837134
> leftism and science dont really go well together
Who knew

>>8837144
Science is independent of liberalism or conservatism. Anyone can twist information to further their own agendas and beliefs but knowledge is knowledge.

Now fuck off.

>>8837144

Yes, in general politics and science don't go well together. Just look at how anti-science /pol/ is.

>>8837143
Most people find the idea of jamming themselves in and blasting all over the ovaries appealing. Imagine how you feel when the third pozzer of the happy hour has just entered the bathroom stall and is unzipping behind you and that's roughly how we feel as we are about to pump a woman.

>>8837147
Science is dependent on liberalism. Which in its true sense has more of a home on pol than any other public forum.

>>8837140

>>8837155
Science is dependent on people and organizations willing to pursue knowledge and share it with others.

Sometimes in history conservatives have held back scientific progress. Other times (now) liberals hold back scientific progress. Progress is impartial.

Compare the thread topic >>8836930

to what thread has become >>8837162

>>8837162
Its not about groups. Science requires the freedom of research, openness of interpretation and unbiased publication and use to advance, these are all entirely liberal and so very against the modern left. Sure its against some of pol's christian elements but by far and large pol is the most liberal site going

>>8837167
You're correct, I was referring to the modern groups of liberals and conservatives and not the values of classical liberalism

>>8836930
It's been statistically observed that younger brothers are more likely to be gay than older brothers (This effect does not exist among women). A suggested cause for this is decreased exposure to testosterone in utero. (1) Gay men and MTF Transsexuals have both been observed to have statistically smaller INAH 3 than normal men. (2)(3) The INAH 3 of gay men and MTF transsexuals has been observed to be closer in size to those of women. (4)

1) http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/humanbody/sex/articles/results/handedness.shtml

2) http://science.sciencemag.org/content/253/5023/1034

3) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK10994/

4) https://academic.oup.com/brain/article-lookup/doi/10.1093/brain/awn276

>>8837046
>e left is biological female the right is biological male. I'm not saying either of them are attractive but they look pretty close to each other.

They look pretty similar. Usually the MTF is the one wearing more makeup, so I guessed left.

>>8837122
I've seen this dude twice in this thread now, please stop posting him.

>>8837207
You don't like sexy women anon?

>>8837213
>>8837207
I mean, as stated earlier in this thread, you're gay if you're not attracted to her.

>>8837122
The part of your brain responsible for sexual arousal registers buck angel as a man. The fact that he's biologically female is irrelevant to sexual attraction. It's relevant to lots of other areas, but no sexual arousal.

>>8837213
That's 110% a dude. Why are you posting him?

>>8837207
he just likes to exercise his racism and shitpost on /sci/ like a typical SJWtard. report and hide

>>8837218
Not according to
>>8837030


>>8837219
Heh, turn off worksafe and do an image search if you think that's the case.

>>8837226
That's because >>8837030 is obviously an idiot. Why are you even responding to him?

>>8837229
Because it's amusing. I agree fully with your statement >>8837218

I also wonder why MTF tranny+woman porn isn't more of a thing.

>>8837217
Everyone has been saying that being attracted to masculine features makes you gay or bi, regardless if its on a girl.

>>8837232
The market isn't as big for that

>>8837226
That post literally says the opposite of what you think you moron.

>>8837234
Literally this, being attracted to that guy makes you gay. Which is what has been said. The faggot seems to not quite comprehend so he's lashing out.

>>8837235
>The market isn't as big for that
I guess I should be a little more clear: because of how hard up some portions of the population are to not expose themselves to nude males, it seems to make sense to want to minimize the maleness in the scene. I suppose that lesbians with strapons can serve that function to a point, but I dunno, just seems like it should be more of a thing.

>>8837234
You are gay if you are attracted to a combination of features that in your mind registers as a man. You can be attracted to feminine men or masculine men, if they have enough features for you to register as men, it doesn't matter.

You're straight if you attracted to a combination of features that in your mind registers as a woman. Again you can be attracted to feminine women or masculine women.

An anomaly like buck angel, who is a female to male transsexual, has an overwhelmingly male presentation. Not just a masculine presentation, but a decidedly, overtly male presentation. You can't register him as a woman without serious cognitive dissonance. Another female to male transsexual, one who doesn't pass as a man as well as buck angel, one who maybe isn't on testosterone or still has breasts etc. will probably register in your mind as a woman despite their desire to be seen as a man. It's the same thing with male to female transsexuals, there are some that your brain will see as a woman and others that your brain will see as a man.

>>8837240
No, if you're attracted to masculine appearing women in general you're either bi or gay in the closet, stop trying to justify it especially by posting a transexual and confusing the position you are mocking. It really falls flat.

Holy shit when the alternative arguments have been that and the fact that you get aroused staring at a man's ass from a distance its just bizarre. Im pretty much shitposting but you've just made me agree with myself.

>>8837247
A masculine woman is very distinct from a masculine man.

>>8837247

Looks like it's that time again

>>8837251
That's literally not a masculine woman. Muscular, kinda, but not masculine.

This is a masculine woman.

>>8837264
>let me try so hard to look like the opposite race and act surprised when they guess my sex wrong.
lmao

>>8837269
>muscular
>very broad shoulders
>masculine posture, body language and expression

>>8837251
Literally looks like a bloke, not helping your "im not a faggot really" argument

>>8837264
>let me try so hard to look like the opposite sex and act surprised when they guess my sex wrong.
lmao

>>8837030
Uh traps

>>8836930
I suppose if i dont weigh in on this subject then certain things wont get said.

I approach the subject not just from a scientific angle, but also a debating angle.

The debating angle reveals this: Gays have falsified scientific research in the past. Im specifically mentioning the Xq28 paper that couldnt be repeated. But for a while, it was all sunshine and rainbows and the person who made the research even published a book on it, which sold well and was accepted. The guy who wrote this was himself gay. So, clear vested interest in fooling not just others but himself.
The important and telling thing about all this is the media repercussions and that it was immediately accepted by many gays. The problem here is that gays arnt concerned with weather their choices are scientifically based or not. After all they all started being gay before the science came out. And this is the problem, because the gay scientific explanation, much like Christian apocalypse, has been both impeding and rescheduled again and again by scientific papers. First it was genetic, then it was epigenetic (because it had to be because it wasnt genetic, right?) and it was a phenotype. Now it simply "i do it because i choose to". The problem is that gays jump from lily pad to lily pad of temporary excuse. You too are in this category because your in favour of "gay rights" but gayness has yet to be solved scientifically.

From viewing it in many debates for about 10 years i can say that the gayness is indeed an ideology. They have a flag, they have organisations, they have poleticians for gods sake, and if you say something anti gay you can be targeted to get you fired from your job. These are the hallmarks of a tyranny. 1.) Bad science 2.) Taboo of nonbelievers.

In conclusion, as gay science has not explained or solved gayness. The correct position to take is scepticism. Not taking up their side of the team.

Continued.

>>8837275
I gave you muscular, but that's just definition and not mass, which isn't really a gender signifier.

>very broad shoulders
Not really no. Still well within a normal female frame. What you're looking for is narrow hips.

>masculine posture
You're an idiot.
>body language
maybe autistic
>expression
definitely autistic

>>8837283
Whom liking makes you gay at the very least

>science and math

Continued:
>>8837285

As for weather it is a disease. It is now completely and entirely understood that genes exist for replication. That the entire purpose of genes is to continue your genetic line.

Even Richard Dawkins himself, pro gay as he is says in The Selfish Gene, that the enforced celibacy of catholic priests goes against genetics.

How much the more so does gayness go against genetics.

When someone is infertile this is described as a disease because it is a departure from normal health.

How much the more so for gayness, which can be said to be a sort of mental infertility.

It really doesnt matter how you slice it, if genetics code for survival of genes, and gays dont survive. This must be against genetics. This must be a disease.

Im sure youve probably heard of the various reasons that gayness is supposed to survive and persist in genes. Such as the theory of co-raising your siblings. But remember, no gay gene has been found, so how can we be sure of its persistence? Its another lilypad is what im saying.

In conclusion, consider that every gay, every SINGLE one. Has thousands of people behind them, maybe even hundreds of thousands, who are their ancestors, and every single one of them, was straight.

Is it a disease? Is it a departure from normal health? I have given you the pieces of the puzzle. It remains to be seen if you can put them together yourself. Or will you simply fall for the latest theory that is just that, a theory, that claims to explain it all. Oh, and just happens to go with the hallmarks of tyranny.

>>8836930
Oh... I guess I will post my answer here as well.
>>8132677

>>8837331
>>8837285
hahaha
actual chuckle/10 good bait sir.

>>8837345
>i cant prove him wrong
>ill say its bait

Your posting that in a bait thread you know.

>absolutely everything is a product of societal influences and genes don't matter at all
>except for that thing we find politically convenient
Really activates your almonds.

I consider myself gay and have always had feelings towards men since as early as middle school as far as I can remember. There might be some truth to being influenced by someone sexually as a youth as my mom when I was six showed me a Kodak picture that showed up in a photo reel of me and my friend with our penises together that I don't remember anything about.

>>8837355
Oh, wee brainlet, do you know the point of debate?

It's not to get to truth, it's to win. There is no point in engaging someone in debate unless you feel some shortcoming that you have to compensate for.

>>8837361
>There might be some truth to being influenced by someone sexually as a youth as my mom when I was six showed me a Kodak picture that showed up in a photo reel of me and my friend with our penises together that I don't remember anything about.
Basically all kids do shit like that.

>>8837285
Based

>>8837365
Really? Always thought it was with different genders they do stuff like that...

>>8837375
That too, but kids are curious little shits who are curious about EVERYTHING.

>>8837365
I didnt

>>8837385
I bet if we sat down with your mom and asked, we'd find a very, very different story.

You'll find out if you ever have kids.

>>8837362
>Oh, wee brainlet, do you know the point of debate?
>It's not to get to truth, it's to win.

If you belive that... YOU are the brainlet.

If winning = good
And facts = good
Then facts = winning

>>8837390
Wew, that's some top shelf logic there. Let's see if I can master that particular form:

If nothing is better than God
and
a ham sandwich is better than nothing,
then
a ham sandwich must be God. Q.E.D (you forgot this part. You aren't logicing if you don't QED. It's in the rules and stuff).

>>8837400
That isnt even close to what ive said.

Also the "IF" ive included is conditional on evidence. If you challenged the "IF" id say; provide evidence.

IF my logic is top shelf yours must be bottom. I submit in evidence, your evidence.

>>8836930
>saying that their "disease" can be cured

Who gives a shit of whether it can be cured or not. Pyromania. schizophrenia, pedophilia, bestiality, necrophilia, body integrity identity disorder, etc etc, all can't be cured but obviously shouldn't be supported and promoted.

I am so sick of this anti-body shaming, anti-ableism, support everything, and "nothing better than anything else" communism bullshit. Accept that you're fucked up and most things in life won't be designed nor accommodating for your fuck ups.

>>8837285
>>8837331
>>8837390
Pretty sure at least one of your ancestors was a repressed homo who only procreated because he had to in order to not get lynched.

>>8837400
>Q.E.D (you forgot this part. You aren't logicing if you don't QED. It's in the rules and stuff).

Ok, ive got a fun one for ya.

If sperm is used for fertilising eggs
And gays butt contains no eggs
QED gays are delusional.

Prove this wrong.

>>8836930
>saying that their "disease" can be cured

Who gives a shit of whether it can be cured or not. Pyromania, schizophrenia, pedophilia, bestiality, necrophilia, body integrity identity disorder, et cetera et cetera, all can't be cured but obviously shouldn't be supported and promoted.

I am so sick of this anti-body shaming, anti-ableism, support everything, and "nothing is better than anything else" communism bullshit. Accept that you're fucked up and most things in life won't be designed nor accommodating for your fuck ups.

homosexuality is most likely caused by a pathogen

>>8837429
So my entire argument is disproven because of your theory? Lilypad.

If every gay has 100,000 ancestors who bred heterosexually. Then who here is the one in self denial?

>>8836930
studies on this subject are biased otherwise researchers would be killed fags

>>8837436
Interesting theory. Proof?

>>8837432
Absoloutely agree 100%. I am getting fed up with all of this ''love everyone, we are all equal in all regards'' fantasy shit. No you're not equal, you are literally programmed to never reproduce and only enjoy sticking your penor into another man's ass. Nature wants to get rid of you, otherwise you wouldn't have been molded like this.

>>8836930
It is all mental, and you can be genetically predisposed to it. I am a bisexual and I was diagnosed with anti-social behavioural disorder when I was in my late teens. I am attracted to feminine men (sissies, femboys and generally boy-ish looks) but I do not like the idea of performing oral sex on either sex but I would let them do so on me. I am genetically predisposed to this because of my brain however I believe that my environment had influence too. I grew up an immigrant in Western Europe and thus I had a mix of the values from my heritage and liberal views shoved down my throat. I do not judge people for anything really, so for me homosexuality had no connotations at all, and I mean at all until I saw gay parades and such. I think first world countries are (overly-) tolerant, so much so that behaviours that are very hard for somebody else to understand, in this case homosexuality, are not judged straight away but an objective stance is taken, in that everything is not really ethical or moral but cause and effect, a thinking without emotion. An example of this is punishment for paedophiles, now whilst everybody would want them to be beaten to death, including me, the cause and effect of molestation is that a child is scarred, whereas murder of that child ends their life. The effect is the child lives but lives a lesser quality of life, but if I kill the child he has no life at all, so this is why law punishes murderers more so than paedophiles. Nonetheless, I think people are influenced by their upbringing if they become any sort of gay. You can apply this principal to anything in this life, and it works.

Just a little more background to my first point, I am masculine and athletic and I grew up in a masculine, sporty prideful culture, hence why I imagine being dominant in homosexual sex.

>>8837474
Furthermore with your OP, I don't believe in gay rights so much as people who now unquestionably believe in shit they have no experience in, it is just artificial. You don't donate to Syrian charities for orphans, but you support gays? You have to experience to appreciate these things. From an economic viewpoint, the only one that really matters, gays in Japan help in population decline.

>>8837463
>Nature wants to get rid of you
Nah man, then it would have given me an illness that would actually kill me.

If nature was against it, then why does it still exist after millions of years?

>>8837431
I'm pretty sure that one man cumming in another man's ass is under no delusion that he's got any chance of procreating by that act.

>>8836930
>>8836937
>>8836964
>>8837339
Same OP on /lgbt/: >>>/lgbt/8132331

>>8837004
>but bis and transexuals are the ones who took their quest for rights into a whole war against everyone not under their label.
Actually those were the nonbinaries, who are literally straight white girls with a need to be special.

>>8837058
>hormone therapy
>future

I don't want to alarm you but it has become very easy and popular to obtain both male and female hormones.

>>8836930
back to >>>lgbt/

>>8837489
>If nature was against it, then why does it still exist after millions of years?

Then why does cancer exist after millions of years?

>But muh animals can be gay too

And animals can get cancer too.

>>8837331
Humans are social and evolve as groups. Fags are specialized members of the tribe. They persist because they're useful. They don't have to breed; their tribe breeds. You wouldn't even be here shitposting if it weren't for Alan Turing.

>>8837558
are you unironically invoking group selection dude? also fags like turing or hardy didn't have much function ages ago.
evolution doesn't have much to do with homosex.

I love the implication it's the male's purpose to procreate when everyone alive today is the product of only around 1/3 of the males that lived prior.

>>8837571
Exactly. Most men are destined to work and die--nothing more.

>>8837558
>humans evolve as groups
Proof?
>fags... are useful
Proof?
>you wouldnt even be here for Alan Turing
And what part of Turings knowledge of computing was due to being gay. Please tell me.

Also

If being gay was an evolutionary advantage for the individual, then it would have its own gene by now.
The way you describe it: gays are brave for taking upon the mantle of gayness for the whole group because it bestows special powers.

I would love to come out with an epithet right now for how badly you just got beaten. But i will restrict myself simply to saying: Its a remarkable hypothesis, if only you could prove it.

>>8837510
>I'm pretty sure that one man cumming in another man's ass is under no delusion that he's got any chance of procreating by that act.

Then surely he would not produce sperm for it.

>>8837331
>consider that every gay, every SINGLE one. Has thousands of people behind them, maybe even hundreds of thousands, who are their ancestors, and every single one of them, was straight

Wrong. Being gay does not equal sterile. How many gays because of social norms has repressed their homosexuality, married a woman and then had children? This point invalid your whole post about a supposed ''mental infertility''. Gays can survive.

What you do not seem to understand is that homosexuality is a sexual orientation. Because your attracted to men does not mean you are sterile nor unable to sleep with women.

>>8837604
>it bestows special powers
Well yes, it does.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/659850

>>8837608
>Wrong. Being gay does not equal sterile.

Perhaps i should clarify.

Those straight ancestors had straight genes.
There is no gay gene
Therefore gays have straight genes but not gay genes.

This illustrates the point about gay self denial.

>>8837608
>What you do not seem to understand is that homosexuality is a sexual orientation. Because your attracted to men does not mean you are sterile nor unable to sleep with women.

Mental Infertility
e
n
t
a
l

>>8837608
most gays don't (didn't) do that. they just pretended to be virgins

>>8837623
>The relationship between various forms of nonreproduction (especially homosexuality) and intelligence (as measured by IQ and other tests) is investigated by a systematic review of the literature, selecting studies without regard to the direction of their findings. Most studies found the more homosexual subject groups' scores to be higher than those of the more heterosexual controls, and all exceptions to this trend are concentrated in one subgroup: prisoners. Moreover, the more representative the sample studied, and the less subject to challenge the methodology used, the clearer and more statistically significant was the superiority in intelligence of the more homosexual over the more heterosexual group.

Is this real life?

First problem
>systematic review of the literature, selecting studies without regard to the direction of their findings.
>selecting studies.
This is, without a doubt, a correlation not causation fallacy. Even worse it seems to be saying it is a meta analysis, and as all meta analysis, it HAS to disregard the direction of the findings because it couldnt very well have 1 study that was accurate out of 99 inaccurate ones ruin its meta analysis.
>and the less subject to challenge the methodology used,
Well this doesnt sound like a very safe word. As a debater i cant help but wonder what kind of a word this is where methodology isnt challenged?

Also.

In the past ive read a paper that said there was an increase in birth defects found in gays.

I have yet to see proof of this mechanism that being gay bestows greater intellect, aside from the ability to generate fallacy ridden papers.

>>8837557
You are retarded. Nature doesn't want anything.

>>8837664
>they just pretended to be virgins
And now you know the secret history of monastic orders. Aquinas famously drove away a prostitute that his family hired to seduce him with a hot fire poker. Then he channeled all his gay energy into the Summa.

>>8837673
>You are retarded. Nature doesn't want anything.

Actually you and him are saying the same thing.
Why does gayness exist
Why does cancer exist

Answer: because we have not evolved a resistance to it yet.

>>8836930
I wonder if homosexuality is genetic or chosen sometimes too, but I don't think it's really relevant desu.

If it's genetic then you can't really do anything about it. It's not their fault and there's nothing else to be said.
If it is a choice, then so what? Who cares about what kind of sex they choose.
No one gives a fuck about what you choose to eat for dinner, so it doesn't really matter what they choose if it is a choice.

>>8837683
>Who cares about what kind of sex they choose.
>No one gives a fuck about what you choose to eat for dinner, so it doesn't really matter what they choose if it is a choice.

Sex = Eat dinner

Wow thank you for this fascinating display of
stupidity.

>>8837388
Nope, i can know because my brother has a friend who they've always talked of as weird because he would take his penis out as a kid

>>8837432
Psychiatry actually has some of the highest functional cure rates of all medical fields.

>>8837683
I don't care if you kill yourself, but if someone asked me if one should kill himself, I would say no. My opinion about how people "should" live has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not I care about them.

>>8837474
You sound like a faggot and trust me its not because of the west, in face whites have the lowest rates of homosexuality.

As for the gay question, I think it's entirely a mistake to classify people as "gay" in the first place. Craving homosexual behaviors is an addiction to disordered behavior like any other. Some people are addicted to cocaine, some people are addicted to stealing, some people are addicted to violence, and some people are addicted to homosexual interaction. Some people become curious about it for no reason, others try it due to drug use or having it forced upon them as children. Some people can even try it and not become addicted, as with people who take prescription opiates and do not develop the urge to do it more. But for many who do experience homosexual ideas and experiences, it gives them a basal pleasure and they come to crave more. The more they get, the more they want, like a drug. The tendency for this is partially biological and partially social, like any other addiction. Homosexual sex is easy to get and allows people to experience sex without having to appeal to women or do any work. In that sense it's like the addiction to masturbation. However, gay sex addicts are still able to experience love and fulfillment with emotional relations of the opposite sex. See: any "gay person" before it became socially acceptable. They all married to fit in, and ended up loving their wives and having fruitful, full lives after all. There is no doubt that suppressing such urges and living out a "normal" life anyway, with a wife and children (even if you don't enjoy the sex) is a much better choice than rolling around in filth and shame until you die of GRIDS at age 40. There are more important things than your cummies.

>>8837474
bit gay

>>8837670
I love you.
t. mtf

>>8837670
>As a debater
Heh, you still think this is impressive or in some way a qualification?

You're, at best, a sophist, and that has no place in a search for the truth.

I think we need some more confusion ITT

>>8837914
look, sisters!

[math]/sci/[/math] - [math]Science[/math] & [math]Math[/math]

>>8836937
No? What's better than /sci to discuss genetics and trends in psychology?

>>8836947
>There are genetic predispositions.
Example? Explanation?

>>8836951
There are two different arguments. One exists in the realm of morality, while the other exists in the realm of genetics/anatomy.

>>8836956
Two different ideas there, bud.

>>8837129
Don't call him an idiot for asking, fucktard. Post the study instead.

>>8837131
Proposing a question about psychology?!

List of other Great Posts:
>>8837036
>>8837069
>>8837099
>>8837193 <----- FINALLY POSTS STUDIES.
>>8837285 <----- really good summary of the issue.
>>8132331 Kek

>>8837024
>Uses sunglasses to hide feminine eyes
>testosterone creates muscle, which is very good at hiding feminine bone-structure
>Essentially a body-modded freak
So I guess those guys that scale their skin and fork their tongue are lizards now, right?

There is a difference between HOMOSEXUALITY and being GAY. I will focus on men because the divide is more noticeable.

Homosexuality
>has intercourse with same sex
>does not preclude having wife/children and loving said wife/children
>does not imply sole attraction or intercourse preference with other men, merely that it occurs
>does not imply the want to have a relationship with other men
>does not imply an identity
>able to be a homosexual without being gay
>not advertised

Gay
>identity of homosexuality
>if gay, also homosexual
>performs """gay""" mannerisms and adheres to social norms associated with gayness ("""gay"""" speech, hair, fashion, etc.)
>advertised

Classic example would be the ancient Greeks/Romans. Some guys had sex with other guys. Didn't mean they didn't have children, or wives. It only meant that sometimes they just wanted to jack off with other guys and not be around women. Afterwards, they could go home and have sex with their wife and mentor their children.

The concept of "gayness" is a very recent CREATION, only a few decades old. Before this politicized identity, guys just had sex with other guys. They didn't make this fact well known, and it wasn't a big deal. If they went around proclaiming to the world how much they love having their asshole dilated, people ostracized them. This is how it has been for millennia, up until the '60s.

really
makes
you
think

Sexuality isn't even strictly real in the first place imo

>>8838801
Care to explain?

>>8837432
>implying there's anything ethically wrong with bestiality (for large animals) and necrophilia

>>8839997

Being pro Lgbt is pro anti-science.