DescentBB

What are your thoughts on the whole "multiple gender" issue?

Burlyman wrote: Tue Jun 12, 2018 4:58 pm What are your thoughts on the whole "multiple gender" issue?

Well, since scientists are beginning to figure out that the brain's sex can sometimes be different from the body's sex, I'd say that the range of mismatches could be deceptively large. It appears that genetics does not always produce binary results that perfectly match brain sex programming to body sex programming. There's probably an evolutionary reason for that to happen too. We just haven't figured that out yet. Oh wait. You don't believe in evolution do you Burlyman. Silly me.

https://www.sciencenewsforstudents.org/ ... n-disagree

Try taking this test. I must be gender weird because I tend to clasp my hands like a female (body-wise, I'm female), but my ring finger is longer than my index finger, a male trait. I also think more typically male thoughts, like car subjects and aggressive video games, but I'm also good at reading emotions, a female trait. None of that comes from nurture because my parents were straight as a string and followed their gender roles as would any good couple was expected to from the 1950's. So my own sex variations must be because of nature or genetics.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... e-you.html

I do believe in evolution, I just don't let Satan make a monkey out of me.

How is reading emotions only a female trait? I think what you describe as female is more like "stereotypically feminine." What about females who are mathematicians? How do you define a "brain's sex" and what does that even mean?

Burlyman wrote: Tue Jun 12, 2018 4:58 pm What are your thoughts on the whole "multiple gender" issue?

It doesn't affect me personally so I don't give a crap what your gender is. I'll call you whatever you want. There are bigger things to worry about in the world.

Burlyman wrote: Tue Jun 12, 2018 7:04 pm I do believe in evolution, I just don't let Satan make a monkey out of me.

How is reading emotions only a female trait? I think what you describe as female is more like "stereotypically feminine." What about females who are mathematicians? How do you define a "brain's sex" and what does that even mean?

Yeah, you're right. "Stereotypically" would've been the better descriptor. However, females are typically better at reading the emotions of both sexes, but it's not exclusively a female trait as you point out. It also probably evolved that way because females were the ones who "stereotypically" reared the children.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 125133.htm

And as it turns out, "stereotypically", men are better at reading the emotions of other men, not women. That's probably a skill that evolved from the "stereotypical" role of being a protector and fighter. Now you know why a clueless husband can get so easily end up the doghouse when arguing with his wife, but some male total stranger in the car next to him giving him "the look" for that little close pass that occurred a mile back can quickly end up in a road rage incident.

https://medicalxpress.com/news/2013-04- ... women.html

You also just sort of made my point. The brain is not always sexually binary. Traits can be shared or have commonality between the sexes. The human brain has no equal in the animal kingdom. It's large, complicated and intelligent. Our brains are malleable and can end up anywhere on the gender spectrum during fetal formation, although nature usually ends up matching the body's sex to the brain's sex for the most part. Even the body can end up with androgynous sex features from birth, although that's a rarer occurrence. So what do we do when someone's brain sex doesn't match their body sex? Call them mentally ill or defective and force them into their "stereotypical" social gender roles so that no one will have to deal with the uncomfortable truth? That's the way it used to be when I was a kid. Conform or be marginalized and ostracized. I'd rather not slide back into those "forced gender roles" days either. Does the changing gender nomenclature bother you Burlyman? Tsk. I thought I was old and stodgy one here.

You keep talking about brain's sex, but what does that mean?

Burlyman wrote: Mon Jun 18, 2018 9:29 am You keep talking about brain's sex, but what does that mean?

The brain's sexual programming that gives us all our gender identities.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog ... es-tell-us

It's not binary either. The brain cannot be classified by observation as being distinctly female or male. There's a considerable overlap with the few observable physical differences that have been found between the sexes. In other words, our brains all look pretty much the same, male or female. So it's the programming that seems to determine gender identity and behavior.

http://www.pnas.org/content/112/50/15468

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn ... ale-brain/

However, it's definitely NOT this.

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define. ... rain%20Sex

You can't say that gender identity is in the brain or that it's non-binary; even the guy who wrote the article you posted admits he's full of it.

Now here’s the problem: We just don’t know how neuronal assemblies do these things. There isn’t even a generally accepted theory. Until we have one, we can’t even speculate how the brain might encode gender identity, along with all its other functions. So even if we find a plausible site in the brain that might be responsible for gender identity, we wouldn’t know how it did it. Therefore, we wouldn’t know why it was that a person’s idea of him/herself or their social role etc. was at variance with their body. To describe something is not to explain it, though it may be the first step.

If gender "identity" is programming, can't one reprogram himself to match his proper gender role?

Burlyman wrote: Thu Jun 21, 2018 10:08 am You can't say that gender identity is in the brain or that it's non-binary; even the guy who wrote the article you posted admits he's full of it.

Now here’s the problem: We just don’t know how neuronal assemblies do these things. There isn’t even a generally accepted theory. Until we have one, we can’t even speculate how the brain might encode gender identity, along with all its other functions. So even if we find a plausible site in the brain that might be responsible for gender identity, we wouldn’t know how it did it. Therefore, we wouldn’t know why it was that a person’s idea of him/herself or their social role etc. was at variance with their body. To describe something is not to explain it, though it may be the first step.

If gender "identity" is programming, can't one reprogram himself to match his proper gender role?

That quote illustrates quite clearly that we don't understand the brain and how it's formed or programmed in the womb. And yes, all this apparently goes on in the womb before we are born because most kids that grow up gay or transgendered already knew early on, even before the parents realized it. However, we are beginning to get clues about how conditions in the womb can affect the brain's gender programming. Some of this was accidentally discovered decades ago. The anti-miscarriage drug of choice in the 1950's and 60's, diethylstilbestrol or DES, had a couple of unintended side effects because is was an estrogenic drug. Mothers taking this drug were more likely to produce daughters that were either gay or bisexual. Unfortunately, these same daughters were also more likely to develop female cancers later in life.

https://www.sfgate.com/news/article/DES ... 046723.php

And don't you think if we knew how to reprogram the brain, we could repair mental illnesses like depression, schizophrenia and bipolar diseases? You probably already know that there is a "conversion therapy" for gay's and transgendered people, which is the conservative and religious group's standard treatment of practice to attempt to "reprogram" the brains of those who they consider to be abnormal or "sick". It's also considered unethical and inhumane by our modern medical establishment. The failure rate is also quite high, so it's ineffective and most of the time it makes these formerly stable people mentally ill because the process leads the person going through it to develop feelings of self-loathing and self-hatred with no desired changes in sexual attraction. The extreme result is suicide. I suppose if the point is to get rid of people they consider morally repugnant, it works for Christians.

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/30/us/p ... story.html

https://www.livescience.com/50453-why-g ... rmful.html

But lets say for argument's sake that in the future, we as a species do learn how to reprogram our own brains either before or after we're born. Given our great track record at programming computers, would you want humanity or the establishment to have the power to reprogram the brain? First off, reprogramming the brain is admitting that God screwed up when he formed that human being, so you're claiming God is at fault and it needs fixing. What would God say? Secondly, there are huge ethical questions to deal with. Who gets to define what's normal or abnormal? Who gets to define what's proper or improper? Who is it that gets to make that final choice to have someone reprogrammed, especially if it's against their will? I can think of all sorts of dark dystopian scenarios to the future of humanity, all because of a bunch of homophobic morons who freak out about the personal lives of LGBTQ people. Get a life.

Tunnelcat wrote: Fri Jun 22, 2018 2:25 pmSecondly, there are huge ethical questions to deal with. Who gets to define what's normal or abnormal? Who gets to define what's proper or improper? Who is it that gets to make that final choice to have someone reprogrammed, especially if it's against their will? I can think of all sorts of dark dystopian scenarios to the future of humanity, all because of a bunch of homophobic morons who freak out about the personal lives of LGBTQ people. Get a life.

People are always quick to treat things as disorders or diseases. As a less sensitive example, I remember reading an article a while back, clearly written by an extrovert, trying to explore the supposed mystery of why there are introverts despite them being introverted, as though there was some sort of default position that being extroverted was the natural position and anything deviating from that needed explaining. You would think that the value of being introverted would have especially become clear in the last few decades.

You're now starting to delve into the question of who decides what's "normal" with any human behavior. There is so much variation in behaviors between human beings that the borders between normal and abnormal are very subjective and grey. Sure, most behaviors fall into a statistical norm that most members of a society usually rely on and accept for their usual day to day interactions with others. Even those behaviors that fall into that squishy border-less grey area of normalcy tend to be ignored or grudgingly accepted over time because they just aren't that bothersome or weird to show up on most people's radar. But when behaviors clearly fall outside long accepted norms and people are confronted with it quickly, that's when there's resistance to change. Even if those behaviors are not harmful to the large majority of the members of that society, those who exhibit it are still pariahs to be shunned or outcast. People just don't like to accept things that fall far outside their old definitions of normal. They want sameness in their day to day lives because it's comfortable. So the quicker the change, the harder the push back. In order for society to drastically change what it considers normal behavior, it has to be a slow, constant and steady effort. Eventually over time, it becomes the new normal.

It's still possible to "be gay" and still choose to behave like a heterosexual. I watched a video of a man talking about how he was living a "gay" lifestyle and he asked God about it and now he has a wife and 3 children. This "born gay" nonsense is nothing more than Satanic propaganda to undermine the family and traditional gender roles. In the beginning, God made man male and female. God doesn't make people gay, so there's nothing wrong with any "LGBTQ" person renouncing that death-style and following God's commandments. Also, there's no such thing as "homophobic." We fear our God because He is an all-consuming fire. What we Christians don't like is the LGBTQ "community" encroaching on our freedoms and trying to normalize immorality even making ppl lose their jobs just because they won't use some freak's "preferred pronouns" even when he or she is obviously male or female. Get life. ^_^

And you get your head into the 21st century, you Bible-thumping ★■◆●.

Burlyman wrote: Wed Jun 27, 2018 9:05 pm It's still possible to "be gay" and still choose to behave like a heterosexual. I watched a video of a man talking about how he was living a "gay" lifestyle and he asked God about it and now he has a wife and 3 children. This "born gay" nonsense is nothing more than Satanic propaganda to undermine the family and traditional gender roles. In the beginning, God made man male and female. God doesn't make people gay, so there's nothing wrong with any "LGBTQ" person renouncing that death-style and following God's commandments. Also, there's no such thing as "homophobic." We fear our God because He is an all-consuming fire. What we Christians don't like is the LGBTQ "community" encroaching on our freedoms and trying to normalize immorality even making ppl lose their jobs just because they won't use some freak's "preferred pronouns" even when he or she is obviously male or female. Get life. ^_^

You came into this thread with this conclusion and worked backwards, didn't you. And you wanted to feel this thread out to be sure you felt safe in posting this.

Sorry sunshine, you're not.

The only 'freedom' that's being encroached upon is your 'freedom' to dehumanize others. This opinion is why you should be universally shunned. No redeeming value whatsoever. As far as I'm concerned, you can take this toxic, bigoted, backwards opinion into Syria... where it belongs.

I love how fundie assholes are so scared of Islam yet are every bit as terrible as the Taliban.

Burlyman wrote:I watched a video of a man talking about how he was living a "gay" lifestyle and he asked God about it and now he has a wife and 3 children.

On my list of things I'm worried about, people talking to something that isn't there and apparently thinking they have received an answer and acting on it is much higher on the list than people being in love.

Burlyman wrote: Wed Jun 27, 2018 9:05 pmWe fear our God because He is an all-consuming fire.

What a horrible way to live through life. So sad.

Burlyman wrote: Wed Jun 27, 2018 9:05 pmWe fear our God because He is an all-consuming fire.

Wait a minute I sometimes hear from christians that you should love god and embrace him and all that but now I hear this?

TRUEpiiiicness wrote: Thu Jun 28, 2018 2:10 pm

Burlyman wrote: Wed Jun 27, 2018 9:05 pmWe fear our God because He is an all-consuming fire.

Wait a minute I sometimes hear from christians that you should love god and embrace him and all that but now I hear this?

I guess it depends on whether that particular Christian believes in the Old Testament God or the New Testament God. Unfortunately, the Old Testament is always quoted when it comes to something they abhor, think is sinful or disagree with, totally ignoring the loving God and Jesus in the New Testament. Maybe modern Christians should remember this whenever they cite Leviticus:

The Law Of Moses went out of force
when Jesus died on the Cross.

Top Gun wrote: Wed Jun 27, 2018 9:37 pm And you get your head into the 21st century, you Bible-thumping ★■◆●.

You know I don't pay any attention to anything you say, right?

Ferno, I don't know what you're talking about, and apparently neither do you, "sunshine."

Vander-- foolish mortal

Jesus still condemns homosexuality. 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 no way around it.

BACK ON TOPIC-- So what do you think would be an "evolutionary" reason for changing gender roles, considering that nature would never create anything that would mean its own end? You know, since no life can come from a homosexual relationship.

Burlyman wrote:Jesus still condemns homosexuality. 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 no way around it.

Wasn't that written by a guy that never met Jesus?

BACK ON TOPIC-- So what do you think would be an "evolutionary" reason for changing gender roles, considering that nature would never create anything that would mean its own end? You know, since no life can come from a homosexual relationship.

Homosexuality may be a variation of a successful trait. Did Paul ever say anything about infertility?

Burlyman wrote: Fri Jun 29, 2018 1:53 am
Jesus still condemns homosexuality. 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 no way around it.

Jesus himself never said anything about it. For all we know, Paul was an emasculated homophobe that liked the idea of including that sin in the Bible as a way to get rid of all homosexuals. I'm sure there are quite a few modern men out there today who'd like to do the same thing if they had that power.

Burlyman wrote: Fri Jun 29, 2018 1:53 amBACK ON TOPIC-- So what do you think would be an "evolutionary" reason for changing gender roles, considering that nature would never create anything that would mean its own end? You know, since no life can come from a homosexual relationship.

First off, the numbers of gay, lesbian or bisexuals in the general population is so small, it wouldn't have an affect on population numbers. There are still plenty of straights to complete the job, so don't worry.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/vol ... 8a99d6102a

Perhaps there is an evolutionary reason, but detailed study has been lacking in this area, possibly due to bias, fear and loathing.

https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-26089486

It's also been observed in the animal kingdom as well.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexua ... in_animals

Burlyman wrote: Fri Jun 29, 2018 1:53 am
BACK ON TOPIC-- So what do you think would be an "evolutionary" reason for changing gender roles, considering that nature would never create anything that would mean its own end? You know, since no life can come from a homosexual relationship.

You're looking for your opinion to come out of our mouths. Too bad for you; that's not going to happen.

Ferno, if you don't know what you're talking about, then how can I?

Are you seriously going to come into this thread with the title it has and act like you didn't know I had an opinion? If you don't like my opinion and want me to regurgitate yours, that's your problem. Find some other thread... maybe there you can claim that their opinion is "toxic" and yours is perfect, and maybe they will take it, but that won't happen with me.

Also, aren't you a moderator? You just let people insult me and didn't say anything, yet somehow I am "toxic and bigoted?" Or maybe this forum isn't under your jurisdiction.

Paul had a supernatural encounter with the Lord Jesus.
If you don't believe in such things, then maybe you will conclude that he didn't meet Him.

Tunnelcat wrote: Fri Jun 29, 2018 2:24 pm

Burlyman wrote: Fri Jun 29, 2018 1:53 am
Jesus still condemns homosexuality. 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 no way around it.

Jesus himself never said anything about it. For all we know, Paul was an emasculated homophobe that liked the idea of including that sin in the Bible as a way to get rid of all homosexuals. I'm sure there are quite a few modern men out there today who'd like to do the same thing if they had that power.

God's commandments still apply unless they are superseded by something in the New Testament. So, Paul was most likely going off of that, and he was guided by the Holy Spirit, whom Jesus promised would come. Paul himself did say that we can't sin so that grace will increase. But how could we sin if there is no law?

First off, the numbers of gay, lesbian or bisexuals in the general population is so small, it wouldn't have an affect on population numbers. There are still plenty of straights to complete the job, so don't worry.

But what if straight people did the opposite of what I said, started identifying as gay and stayed that way?

Perhaps there is an evolutionary reason, but detailed study has been lacking in this area, possibly due to bias, fear and loathing.

https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-26089486

Whoever wrote that article babbled on about genes and Darwin's theory, but I don't see any evidence for any "gay gene." Where are the experiments?

It's also been observed in the animal kingdom as well.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexua ... in_animals

I believe animals are just mirroring what's happening to humans, since the animals were made for man, and there's no longer a reason to keep them behaving the way they were in the beginning, since we rejected the original creation... just like how they no longer eat plants but many of them eat each other, and now we eat them. x_x They also attack us and are afraid of us. One would have to consider the "evolutionary" reason for these things as well, if macroscopic evolution is to be believed. >_>

One thing we can learn from the animal kingdom is the homo animals don't force their propaganda onto other animals; if a gay animal wants to have sex with a straight animal, and the animal doesn't want it, it will just attack the gay one. and the animal that hits the other won't get arrested by the police.

Burlyman wrote: Sat Jun 30, 2018 8:52 am Ferno, if you don't know what you're talking about, then how can I?

Are you seriously going to come into this thread with the title it has and act like you didn't know I had an opinion? If you don't like my opinion and want me to regurgitate yours, that's your problem. Find some other thread... maybe there you can claim that their opinion is "toxic" and yours is perfect, and maybe they will take it, but that won't happen with me.

Also, aren't you a moderator? You just let people insult me and didn't say anything, yet somehow I am "toxic and bigoted?" Or maybe this forum isn't under your jurisdiction.

See, I know you're just trying to bait me. Not happening, sorry.

Homey don't play that game.

Burlyman wrote: Sat Jun 30, 2018 10:10 am I believe animals are just mirroring what's happening to humans, since the animals were made for man, and there's no longer a reason to keep them behaving the way they were in the beginning, since we rejected the original creation... just like how they no longer eat plants but many of them eat each other, and now we eat them. x_x They also attack us and are afraid of us. One would have to consider the "evolutionary" reason for these things as well, if macroscopic evolution is to be believed. >_>

One thing we can learn from the animal kingdom is the homo animals don't force their propaganda onto other animals; if a gay animal wants to have sex with a straight animal, and the animal doesn't want it, it will just attack the gay one. and the animal that hits the other won't get arrested by the police.

You're batshit insane.

You're funny.

Ferno wrote: Sat Jun 30, 2018 11:33 pm

Burlyman wrote: Sat Jun 30, 2018 8:52 am Ferno, if you don't know what you're talking about, then how can I?

Are you seriously going to come into this thread with the title it has and act like you didn't know I had an opinion? If you don't like my opinion and want me to regurgitate yours, that's your problem. Find some other thread... maybe there you can claim that their opinion is "toxic" and yours is perfect, and maybe they will take it, but that won't happen with me.

Also, aren't you a moderator? You just let people insult me and didn't say anything, yet somehow I am "toxic and bigoted?" Or maybe this forum isn't under your jurisdiction.

See, I know you're just trying to bait me. Not happening, sorry.

Homey don't play that game.

Dude, I'm not trying to bait you. I don't even know what you're talking about or why you would think that.

Burlyman wrote: Fri Jun 29, 2018 1:53 amSo what do you think would be an "evolutionary" reason for changing gender roles, considering that nature would never create anything that would mean its own end? You know, since no life can come from a homosexual relationship.

Having children is only one possible way of passing on your genes. Helping to raise a sibling's children is another, since your siblings are genetically similar to you, and so helping to raise your sibling's children is similar to raising your own.

Why do you think that people are more willing to help their close family than they are complete strangers? Because your close family shares more of your genes. Evolution predicts this behavior.

O.K. how can one pass on genes by raising a child? Through the air?

Just how badly did you flunk out of high school biology? Or did your entire textbook consist of "God did it"? That's what passes for education in your neck of the woods, right?

Burlyman wrote: Mon Jul 02, 2018 12:56 am O.K. how can one pass on genes by raising a child? Through the air?

If it's your child, because it's genetically similar to you. If it's your sibling's child, also because it's genetically similar to you.

Jeff250 wrote: Mon Jul 02, 2018 1:46 am

Burlyman wrote: Mon Jul 02, 2018 12:56 am O.K. how can one pass on genes by raising a child? Through the air?

If it's your child, because it's genetically similar to you. If it's your sibling's child, also because it's genetically similar to you.

Are you talking about epigenetics?

Top Gun wrote: Mon Jul 02, 2018 12:58 am Just how badly did you flunk out of high school biology? Or did your entire textbook consist of "God did it"? That's what passes for education in your neck of the woods, right?

Hey, kiddo, be quiet. The adults are talking.

troll.triggered();



To answer your question, this is what I did in high school in that class where the teacher tried to convert us to monkeyism:



It's also what I do when dealing with the likes of you.

I had to include a silly image to make things make sense to you. I'm sorry I can't make any pop-up pictures.

See how nice I am? I answered your question even though you're a [Deleted-Personal Insult]. ^_^

Top Gun wrote:

Okay enough of that. ^_^

Burlyman wrote: Mon Jul 02, 2018 9:27 amAre you talking about epigenetics?

No.

Parenting can be thought of as two steps, (1) creation of something that is genetically similar to you and (2) raising it so that it can one day parent itself. The necessity of step (1) is hopefully obvious. What might not be obvious is that step (2) is just as important. For example, if your genetically similar things don't survive to adulthood, then step (1) was all for nothing. What might also be nonobvious is that you can do step (2) without directly having any children. If you come from a large family, you are already surrounded by children who are genetically similar to you and who need raising. By raising them, you're helping to pass on your genes by ensuring they survive to adulthood, because even though they aren't your children they are still genetically similar to you. Evolution doesn't care if they are your children or not because evolution is just about the genes.

So basically what you're saying is that nature doesn't create abominations but we do gotcha.

Burlyman wrote: Mon Jul 02, 2018 9:28 am To answer your question, this is what I did in high school in that class where the teacher tried to convert us to monkeyism:

[Deleted-Personal Insult] Good to know.

Y'know the fact that people like you can vote is the most damning indictment of democracy I've ever seen.

Burlyman wrote: Mon Jul 02, 2018 11:52 am So basically what you're saying is that nature doesn't create abominations but we do gotcha.

What is your stance on hermaphroditism, which is found in humans and animals alike?

Burlyman wrote: Mon Jul 02, 2018 11:52 am So basically what you're saying is that nature doesn't create abominations but we do

I don't follow.

Top Gun wrote: Mon Jul 02, 2018 12:24 pm

Burlyman wrote: Mon Jul 02, 2018 9:28 am To answer your question, this is what I did in high school in that class where the teacher tried to convert us to monkeyism:

So you are a complete ★■◆●ing moron, and willfully so. Good to know.

Y'know the fact that people like you can vote is the most damning indictment of democracy I've ever seen.

If you're trying to start a flame war, you're not doing a very good job. Where are the moderators? Or do they leave people alone whom they like?

this clown just wrote:Anyone who doesn't agree with me is a moron and shouldn't be allowed to vote, because that's democracy!