|
|
Post by kristine on Mar 20, 2010 13:43:41 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by RavynousHunter on Mar 20, 2010 14:21:24 GMT -5
And, if done right, it can be a fun line to dance around. I'm not saying you can't - just that it's hypocritical to criticize people for being vicious and then do it yourself. Oh no, I'm a hypocrite...god forbid. (God damn it, I wish there were a way to truly convey dry humor with text.) |
|
|
|
Post by Vene on Mar 20, 2010 14:27:06 GMT -5
I want to scream at the writer of that article. First off, as the article says, "He kept insisting that he was a girl." That is not homosexuality. There is another -sexuality that is, but it's not homo-, it's trans-. Second, the article seems to be coming from a standpoint that there has to be a single cause for orientation. The genetic studies can't be dismissed, the hormonal studies can't be dismissed. The answer lies in both of them. There won't be a single gay gene. If there was a single gay gene, orientation would be binary (at least, with clear categories). That is Mendelian genetics, but it doesn't work when traits fall upon a continuum. Orientation is a continuum. Instead, there is quantitative genetics. This works for traits that do fall upon a continuum. The reason for this is that there are multiple genes influencing it. Which means that any one gene won't be enough to determine orientation. In fact, even knowing all of them we can't know exactly what will happen. Genes have to be expressed for it to actually have an effect. Some genes are on by default and need to be turned off, others are off by default and need to be turned on. What turns them on and off are environmental factors. This is where hormones come in. The genes could be effected by the level of sex hormones for which ones are on and off and how often they're on or off. So, even if you have the genes for homosexuality doesn't mean you're gay. And I really am thoroughly pissed that they are associating sexual orientation and identity with each other. This has been done before! There isn't one. The two are independent of each other. This article makes it seem like looking for an association here will accomplish something when it's been done before. And I have a hard time believing that researchers would research something that has already been established, especially when I see time and time again journalists misrepresenting science. |
|
|
|
Post by RavynousHunter on Mar 20, 2010 14:31:36 GMT -5
Well, ya see, science is hard.
(Yeah, that's my entire argument...or lack thereof.)
|
|
|
|
Post by worlder on Mar 29, 2010 17:05:00 GMT -5
Ah I see that this thread is still kicking.
Well I just worry that our use of the term "sky daddy" might be our equivalent of "exploding rock", "rock ape", or whatever.
I worry that we begin to passively adopt some fundie traits through our mocking.
"My what a shiny mirror you have..."- Various FSTDT comments
|
|
|
|
Post by RavynousHunter on Mar 30, 2010 11:05:25 GMT -5
Eeh, I'll stick with calling spades spades...in spades. I've no desire to be the "better man." I'll just be me, thank you.
|
|
|
|
Post by tolpuddlemartyr on Mar 30, 2010 21:14:43 GMT -5
Well I just worry that our use of the term "sky daddy" might be our equivalent of "exploding rock", "rock ape", or whatever. Our Father who art in Heaven, Skydaddy, same difference! Ones shorter. |
|
|
|
Post by RavynousHunter on Mar 31, 2010 13:26:54 GMT -5
Nyarlathotep be praised for efficiency, eh?
|
|
