Gender Roles

[Emily Lake]

Throwing word salad and throwing monkey poo often seem similar on the Internet.
Tom

Tell me you've never read a book even as dense as "origin of the species" without telling me you've never read a book even as dense as "origin of the species".

If you read it, you didn't understand it. And you definitely haven't kept up with the study of evolution over the 160 years following its publication.

 

[Emily Lake]

If you refuse to do the work to understand my basis of thought

Your basis of thought is damned near incomprehensible. It mostly reads as if you have imbibed a bit to much of the devil's lettuce. You suck at communication.

 

[Emily Lake]

Well it seems you're not interested in talking about what I said, but I fact want to talk about what bomb said about what I said, fully abandoning actual discussion about the statement and going into pure bullshit land.

I stopped finding your ideological poo flinging worth discussing a while back.

Bullshit land, to use your language.
Tom

Well, I invited you to discuss it and you won't, so maybe you can shut the fuck up about what is and isn't word salad.

I offered three times to discuss it and you spurned it every time.

You could have discussed what I actually said, but you didn't.

Not really though. You never invite anyone to discuss it. You make baseless assertions, based on your own imaginings, and you present them with a wall of jargony incomprehensible text that mostly sounds like you're a teenager who just got high for the first time... and then you expect that everyone else accept your opinions and your free-association ramblings as if it were fact. And then you name-call and get pissy when people disagree with your abysmally flawed premises and assumptions.

You seem to be clinically unable to actually have a discussion, and you are very, very bad at making your ideas accessible to others.

 

[Emily Lake]

Ok, I’m reading the Wikipedia on Kropotkin. I’m not a Marxist or a communist. I believe both in individualism and also the benefits of chosen collectives

So hey, you know why some animals form social groups, and why that manifests in a way that aligns with evolutionary adaptations? It's actually not so surprising, when you get right down to it.

Evolution is the ultimate when it comes to selfishness. When being in a group increases the likelihood for any individual managing to sexually reproduce, then those who favor a group are more likely to be able to reproduce. It's all about the individual's likelihood of passing on their genes.

Most herd animals are also prey animals. In a herd of 100 individuals, when the herd is attacked, each individual only has a 1% chance of getting killed and eaten. If an individual alone gets attacked, they have more like a 50% chance of getting eaten. And even more to the point, in a herd it's more likely to be an individual who has already reproduced that gets killed and eaten, and the ones who haven't yet reproduced have a higher likelihood of living to make offspring because someone else got eaten instead.

This ultimate selfishness can be hijacked by evolution itself (not consciously of course). Some species have evolved to a system where most of the offspring are sterile, and live their lives being slaves. Think bees and ants. Evolution has resulted in a situation among bees where most of the bees don't get to pass *their* genes along. Only the queen gets to pass her genes along, with contributions from whichever virile males she mates with. In bees, evolution has become so blatantly selfish, that genetic lineage is extremely narrow.

 

[Emily Lake]

It depends on whether or not a person has value beyond their ability and willingness to reproduce.

Assume that a person’s value resides solely upon their ability/willingness to continue their genes in offspring. That still does not mean that their genes can only be further propagated by directly producing genetic offspring, i.e. mating. By helping to raise to reproductive age/childbearing age the genetic offspring of closely related family members, an individual actually IS supporting the continuation of their genetic line.

Yup. To truly understand evolution you need to understand humans are the means by which our DNA replicates. Evolution selects for the DNA, not for it's host.

And to add to my previous post about helping care for niblings, there's also the fact they serve as spare parents. Humanity evolved in an environment where there was no welfare system or the like, a kid who loses their parents dies. But looking at modern society people will generally take in their niblings rather than leave them to the foster care system--think they didn't do the same when it was take them in or leave them to die? Or consider the problem of hunter-gatherer societies--when it's time to move on a mother could carry one child. If she had more than one that couldn't walk that meant abandoning the extra unless someone else was available to carry the child.

This is an extremely anthropocentric perspective.

 

[Emily Lake]

Well, darwinian evolution selects for DNA not host.

Again, humans don't use that mode "purely". We evolve using memetic units as much as genetic ones, in terms of shifts of behavior and ability.

Human exceptionalism again?

Evolution gives zero fucks about memetics, and memetics don't alter our genetic code.

 

[Emily Lake]

There are genes that contribute to the expression of the phenotype. As discussed in other posts in this same thread even, those genes are often related to maternal processes, creating an epigenetic effect.

Homosexuality isn't a phenotype.

 

[Toni]

The conditions (that may or may not be disorders for any given person) are only a "disorders" assuming they cause "distress" to a specific, real person. Some condition causing such distress to 99.999% of all the people who have it still does not make it a disorder, because it is the distress, not the condition, that makes it a disorder.

Cancer is only a disease if the person with cancer thinks it's a disease. If even one person is okay with having cancer, then we totally can't call cancer a disease, because it's the distress not the condition that makes it a disease.

Did you feel the same way about covid? Did you take the view that we can't call it an infection, because some people weren't distressed by having it and weren't bothered by their very mild effects? Do you support people choosing not to vaccinate themselves or their kids because they don't see those illnesses as distressing?

She is begging the question that we ought consider them as disorders absent the validation of distress.

No, I'm referring to them as disorders because 1) medical science classifies them as disorders and 2) they have negative impacts on the health of the people who have those conditions.

Once again, YOU are the person rubbing your moralism all over this topic. YOU are the one with the religious faith, who sees disagreement as tantamount to heresy.

That’s a pretty repugnant way to think of variations in sexual attraction.

Differences in the extent to which one is sexually attracted to others and what type(s) of individuals one is attracted to is hardly a disease but a variation of sexuality.

Thinking of these naturally occurring variations in our species and in other species as diseased my itself be a mental health disorder and is certainly unattractive and based in ignorance,

In humans, sexual desire and expression is not limited to reproduction, desired or unfortunate consequence. Humans have sex with other humans for a variety of reasons, of which a desire to reproduce is only one. The desire to continue a sexual relationship extends past fertility and exists even if individuals are incapable of producing offspring.

 

[Toni]

It depends on whether or not a person has value beyond their ability and willingness to reproduce.

Assume that a person’s value resides solely upon their ability/willingness to continue their genes in offspring. That still does not mean that their genes can only be further propagated by directly producing genetic offspring, i.e. mating. By helping to raise to reproductive age/childbearing age the genetic offspring of closely related family members, an individual actually IS supporting the continuation of their genetic line.

Yup. To truly understand evolution you need to understand humans are the means by which our DNA replicates. Evolution selects for the DNA, not for it's host.

And to add to my previous post about helping care for niblings, there's also the fact they serve as spare parents. Humanity evolved in an environment where there was no welfare system or the like, a kid who loses their parents dies. But looking at modern society people will generally take in their niblings rather than leave them to the foster care system--think they didn't do the same when it was take them in or leave them to die? Or consider the problem of hunter-gatherer societies--when it's time to move on a mother could carry one child. If she had more than one that couldn't walk that meant abandoning the extra unless someone else was available to carry the child.

This is an extremely anthropocentric perspective.

Well, as far as I can tell, we are discussing humans and human behavior.

 

[Emily Lake]

I would wager they are epigenetic in at least some cases.

IIRC there was some quality research a while back discussing epigenetic factors as they relate to sexual orientation. Epigenetics aren't genetics though, they're things that affect the expression of a gene.

 

[Emily Lake]

... From what I gather, she claims that they qualify as disorders because they are not what we evolved "for", and believes that allows, if not forces, us to ignore them in any objective description of the species. Because they are maladaptive mishaps of an error-prone biological mechanism that doesn't always end up with what was "intended" for us. Apart from the reek of teleology, the very same could be said about twins.

And homosexuals. Using the thinking offered, homosexual genes are errors because they lead to less reproductive success of the individual.

You appear to be assuming there are "homosexual genes".

It might only be epigenetic but they very likely exist because birth order is relevant.

I would say more likely, the number of prior births affects the environment of the womb, as well as the nature of the chemicals and hormones present in the womb.

(At least to the extent that homosexuality exists--I'm in the camp that thinks there's no such thing, we aren't wired for opposite-sex attraction or same-sex attraction, but for male attraction or female attraction. "Homosexuality" is when the attraction for your own gender is turned on, "heterosexuality" is when the attraction for the opposite gender is turned on. It makes a much simpler model that does a better job of explaining what we see in the real world.)

WTAF? All you've done is swapped out sex for gender in your framing. So you reject "same-sex attraction" but you're okay with "same-gender" attraction? That's... silly. And there are a whole, whole, whole lot of lesbians out there who are very strongly opposed to your idea that they're not attracted to females, but instead are attracted to the performance of a set of social stereotypes.

 

[Emily Lake]

Teleological arguments about evolution always seem strange to me. If you were doing as evolution did not "want" you to do, wouldn't that problem promptly take care of itself? If you don't understand the adaptiveness of a given trait, especially a common one, the problem is almost certainly your lack of knowledge about the circumstances of that trait's development, not the moral wickedness of the trait.

Where the bejesus do you see Emily or anyone else suggesting that the traits you disparage her theories by labeling 'doing as evolution did not "want" you to do' constitute moral wickedness?!?

I was commenting on the teleological fallacy as applied to evolution. Emily can decide for herself whether the criticism applies to her argumentation, I am certain.

And you could have done that perfectly well without the rhetorical flourish you tacked on at the end. Your crack about moral wickedness appears to have had no purpose other than to tar thread participants' views with trumped-up guilt-by-association.

And you are being melodramatic for no real reason at all. People talk about "good" or "bad" or "defective" genes all the time, that's just a fact. A tendency I find risible in all cases. Mother Nature doesn't have opinions on what genes "should" be, or what they are "for" or "not for". Because there is no Mother Nature, only cause and effect, and the directionless tides of gene flow over time.

Which people? Are any of them taking part in this discussion, and can you identify them? If there are none, why are you making a comment about something that nobody in this thread is discussing?

 

[Emily Lake]

The conditions (that may or may not be disorders for any given person) are only a "disorders" assuming they cause "distress" to a specific, real person. Some condition causing such distress to 99.999% of all the people who have it still does not make it a disorder, because it is the distress, not the condition, that makes it a disorder.

Cancer is only a disease if the person with cancer thinks it's a disease. If even one person is okay with having cancer, then we totally can't call cancer a disease, because it's the distress not the condition that makes it a disease.

Did you feel the same way about covid? Did you take the view that we can't call it an infection, because some people weren't distressed by having it and weren't bothered by their very mild effects? Do you support people choosing not to vaccinate themselves or their kids because they don't see those illnesses as distressing?

She is begging the question that we ought consider them as disorders absent the validation of distress.

No, I'm referring to them as disorders because 1) medical science classifies them as disorders and 2) they have negative impacts on the health of the people who have those conditions.

Once again, YOU are the person rubbing your moralism all over this topic. YOU are the one with the religious faith, who sees disagreement as tantamount to heresy.

That’s a pretty repugnant way to think of variations in sexual attraction.

What the actual for realsies fuck are you talking about Toni? I've said nothing at all about sexual attraction here.

Differences in the extent to which one is sexually attracted to others and what type(s) of individuals one is attracted to is hardly a disease but a variation of sexuality.

Thinking of these naturally occurring variations in our species and in other species as diseased my itself be a mental health disorder and is certainly unattractive and based in ignorance,

In humans, sexual desire and expression is not limited to reproduction, desired or unfortunate consequence. Humans have sex with other humans for a variety of reasons, of which a desire to reproduce is only one. The desire to continue a sexual relationship extends past fertility and exists even if individuals are incapable of producing offspring.

None of what you've written here has anything at all to do with anything I've said. EVER.

 

[Emily Lake]

It depends on whether or not a person has value beyond their ability and willingness to reproduce.

Assume that a person’s value resides solely upon their ability/willingness to continue their genes in offspring. That still does not mean that their genes can only be further propagated by directly producing genetic offspring, i.e. mating. By helping to raise to reproductive age/childbearing age the genetic offspring of closely related family members, an individual actually IS supporting the continuation of their genetic line.

Yup. To truly understand evolution you need to understand humans are the means by which our DNA replicates. Evolution selects for the DNA, not for it's host.

And to add to my previous post about helping care for niblings, there's also the fact they serve as spare parents. Humanity evolved in an environment where there was no welfare system or the like, a kid who loses their parents dies. But looking at modern society people will generally take in their niblings rather than leave them to the foster care system--think they didn't do the same when it was take them in or leave them to die? Or consider the problem of hunter-gatherer societies--when it's time to move on a mother could carry one child. If she had more than one that couldn't walk that meant abandoning the extra unless someone else was available to carry the child.

This is an extremely anthropocentric perspective.

Well, as far as I can tell, we are discussing humans and human behavior.

Well... you seem to have missed a bit. Jarhyn and a couple of others are trying to argue that sex in humans is a spectrum of complicated spectruminess, and that male and female aren't actually real things, or at least they're not binary things, and that within all of that somewhere somehow, a person's completely subjective internal sense of how well they align with social stereotypes is what *really* makes them male or female, not their bodies or their reproductive role or anything else. It's all just what they believe about themselves that matters.

 

[Bomb#20]

And homosexuals. Using the thinking offered, homosexual genes are errors because they lead to less reproductive success of the individual.

You appear to be assuming there are "homosexual genes".

As far as I can determine, sexual attraction occurs across a spectrum and is at the very least, heavily determined before birth—genetically determined. Many people are cis/straight but some are not straight/cis and some are bisexual or poly or pansexual trans some are ACE and many are predominately straight but may be attracted to others of the same sex or attracted to individuals rather than either sex. Western society has been structured to heavily favor cis straight people and depending on the society and era, may be more or less tolerant of other expressions of gender and sexuality.

It seems clear to me that these characteristics are largely genetically determined.

Two things:

First, heavily determined before birth isn't the same thing as genetically determined. There's a lot going on in the uterus besides genetics. Any number of events in the mother's life before and during pregnancy will impact the intrauterine environment the fetus forms in; plus which, a lot of the details of embryological development are just random. A growing neuron makes contact with this other neuron instead of that one and the resulting brain thinks differently.

And second, genetically determined isn't the same thing as there being a gene for a trait -- there's also not getting a gene for an alternate trait. For example, according to the last article I read on handedness, there appear to be no genes for left-handedness; there are genes for right-handedness. If you don't get them you become right or left handed randomly. Demonstrating correlation between sexual orientation and genes is not sufficient to imply there are "homosexual genes".

 

[Politesse]

And homosexuals. Using the thinking offered, homosexual genes are errors because they lead to less reproductive success of the individual.

You appear to be assuming there are "homosexual genes".

As far as I can determine, sexual attraction occurs across a spectrum and is at the very least, heavily determined before birth—genetically determined. Many people are cis/straight but some are not straight/cis and some are bisexual or poly or pansexual trans some are ACE and many are predominately straight but may be attracted to others of the same sex or attracted to individuals rather than either sex. Western society has been structured to heavily favor cis straight people and depending on the society and era, may be more or less tolerant of other expressions of gender and sexuality.

It seems clear to me that these characteristics are largely genetically determined.

Two things:

First, heavily determined before birth isn't the same thing as genetically determined. There's a lot going on in the uterus besides genetics. Any number of events in the mother's life before and during pregnancy will impact the intrauterine environment the fetus forms in; plus which, a lot of the details of embryological development are just random. A growing neuron makes contact with this other neuron instead of that one and the resulting brain thinks differently.

And second, genetically determined isn't the same thing as there being a gene for a trait -- there's also not getting a gene for an alternate trait. For example, according to the last article I read on handedness, there appear to be no genes for left-handedness; there are genes for right-handedness. If you don't get them you become right or left handed randomly. Demonstrating correlation between sexual orientation and genes is not sufficient to imply there are "homosexual genes".

Left handedness is not generally considered a "disease", and only superstitious fools try to force lefties to use their non-dominant hand.

 

[Bomb#20]

And homosexuals. Using the thinking offered, homosexual genes are errors because they lead to less reproductive success of the individual.

You appear to be assuming there are "homosexual genes".

As far as I can determine, sexual attraction occurs across a spectrum and is at the very least, heavily determined before birth—genetically determined. ...

...
And second, genetically determined isn't the same thing as there being a gene for a trait -- there's also not getting a gene for an alternate trait. For example, according to the last article I read on handedness, there appear to be no genes for left-handedness; there are genes for right-handedness. If you don't get them you become right or left handed randomly. Demonstrating correlation between sexual orientation and genes is not sufficient to imply there are "homosexual genes".

Left handedness is not generally considered a "disease", and only superstitious fools try to force lefties to use their non-dominant hand.

Thank you Captain Obvious. Do you have any reason to think your post is a substantive contribution to the discussion?

 

[Politesse]

And homosexuals. Using the thinking offered, homosexual genes are errors because they lead to less reproductive success of the individual.

You appear to be assuming there are "homosexual genes".

As far as I can determine, sexual attraction occurs across a spectrum and is at the very least, heavily determined before birth—genetically determined. ...

...
And second, genetically determined isn't the same thing as there being a gene for a trait -- there's also not getting a gene for an alternate trait. For example, according to the last article I read on handedness, there appear to be no genes for left-handedness; there are genes for right-handedness. If you don't get them you become right or left handed randomly. Demonstrating correlation between sexual orientation and genes is not sufficient to imply there are "homosexual genes".

Left handedness is not generally considered a "disease", and only superstitious fools try to force lefties to use their non-dominant hand.

Thank you Captain Obvious. Do you have any reason to think your post is a substantive contribution to the discussion?

Anti-trans bigots are fucking idiots, who understand next to nothing about the real scientific disciplines whose language they ham-fistedly attempt to co-opt.

 

[Bomb#20]

And homosexuals. Using the thinking offered, homosexual genes are errors because they lead to less reproductive success of the individual.

You appear to be assuming there are "homosexual genes".

As far as I can determine, sexual attraction occurs across a spectrum and is at the very least, heavily determined before birth—genetically determined. ...

...
And second, genetically determined isn't the same thing as there being a gene for a trait -- there's also not getting a gene for an alternate trait. For example, according to the last article I read on handedness, there appear to be no genes for left-handedness; there are genes for right-handedness. If you don't get them you become right or left handed randomly. Demonstrating correlation between sexual orientation and genes is not sufficient to imply there are "homosexual genes".

Left handedness is not generally considered a "disease", and only superstitious fools try to force lefties to use their non-dominant hand.

Thank you Captain Obvious. Do you have any reason to think your post is a substantive contribution to the discussion?

Anti-trans bigots are <expletive deleted> idiots, who understand next to nothing about the real scientific disciplines whose language they ham-fistedly attempt to co-opt.

So, that's a "No".

 

[lpetrich]

There are genes that contribute to the expression of the phenotype. As discussed in other posts in this same thread even, those genes are often related to maternal processes, creating an epigenetic effect.

Homosexuality isn't a phenotype.

What do you think that a phenotype is?

phenotype / phenotypes | Learn Science at Scitable

The term "phenotype" refers to the observable physical properties of an organism; these include the organism's appearance, development, and behavior. An organism's phenotype is determined by its genotype, which is the set of genes the organism carries, as well as by environmental influences upon these genes. Due to the influence of environmental factors, organisms with identical genotypes, such as identical twins, ultimately express nonidentical phenotypes because each organism encounters unique environmental influences as it develops. Examples of phenotypes include height, wing length, and hair color. Phenotypes also include observable characteristics that can be measured in the laboratory, such as levels of hormones or blood cells.

Homosexuality is rather obviously a phenotype, as is sex/gender differentiation more generally.