White is the New Black

[star seed 7]

Statistical there's a pretty decent chance that one of ksuw's 10 kids is gay

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

Homosexuals can and do reproduce, at a much larger percentage than the Gooches

As I've said repeatedly, the question is not whether homosexuals can reproduce - of course they can. But if homosexuals are significantly less likely to reproduce than heterosexuals (is anyone going to argue against that?), and if reproduction is the primary biological imperitive of a species (anyone going to argue agaisnt that?), then I think it stands to reason that homosexuality is biological disorder. If you want to quible over use of the word "disorder," that's fine.

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

Homosexuals can and do reproduce, at a much larger percentage than the Gooches

True. And...I don't think gay people are born to only gay parents so this whole Darwin theory applying to the "gay gene" doesn't really make sense.

Correct, and this is true for many other disorders as well, which is one reason why the continuation of homosexuality, DS, etc. does not necessarily disprove Darwin's theory of natural selection, as some have postulated. I probably shouldn't have even brought Darwin into the mix, as it appears to have confused the issue, but I was only trying to make the point that successful reproduction is paramount in biology.

[michigancat]

There are theories that homosexual traits benefitted early tribes even if they didn't reproduce. Human tribes and survival are more complex than simple reproduction.

[MakeItRain]

Unwarranted speculation, lol. Other speculations I've made in the same realm: the sun is hot, a bullet fired from a gun would hurt to be shot with, people who are nuclear physicists are at worst reasonably intelligent, and Comet isn't delicious.

you have no evidence from which to conclude that dolezal is not sincere in her preference to identify as black.  it merely does not suit you to do so.

I can't take your viewpoint on this seriously because you refuse to acknowledge the role that Dolezeal suing Howard University for discrimination against her as a white woman plays in your silly Jenner parallel.

i didn't address it because it is irrelevant.  you don't state here in what way you think that it is relevant, so i'm forced to guess at your thought process.  i'll credit you with at least not making the same ridiculous objection that mrs. gooch and michigancat raised (zomg, she knew she was white!).  in the absence of your own arguments, i'll assume you are simply raising the point that previous to claiming an identity as black, she publicly acknowledged her identity as white and acted in that capacity and within that identity for most of her life.  this too is irrelevant in distinguishing her situation from jenner's.  jenner also acknowledged his identity as male and acted as such in many stereotypically male endeavors throughout his life.  their behaviors in not consistently rejecting the identities society bestowed upon them does not, in and of itself, make their later expressions of preference for other identities hypocritical or illegitimate.  the objection to dolezal having lived as white is about as ridiculous as claiming jenner was fraudulent in competing in athletic events as a male when he felt himself to be female.

Also I'm confused as to why you keep melding the conversation of courage and whether Caitlin Jenner should be receiving an award.

it was an award for courage or bravery or something like that.

Of course it's courageous to tell the world you're transgendered, is this even a doubt? Did I transform into a world where transgendered people are universally accepted?

if you judge by the reactions, both on this messageboard, and what i've encountered of reactions off the board, manifesting yourself as transgender is far more accepted than claiming a race which conflicts with your genetic origin.  perhaps you should reread both threads to note the difference.  if there is no doubt of the courage it takes to claim a transgender identity, how can you argue that it is not more courageous to claim an even less accepted identity?

And knock it off with this race is more mutable than gender bs. No one itt has even attempted to make that argument as a matter of fact with regards to this situation I haven't heard anyone attempt to approach this nationally.

you are right, no one here has had the courage or intellectual honesty to make that argument.  instead the evidence that posters here consider it to be true is manifested in how they've lauded jenner's claim of an identity that conflicts with his biological sex and attacked dolezal for claiming an identity that conflicts with her biological race.  actions speak more truthfully than arguments.

This story is about a person who perpetuated a fraud not someone who struggled for a lifetime to figure out whether or not they want to reveal their true self to the world.

fraud vs "true self".  no, clearly you don't find gender to be more mutable than race.  gmafb.

I forgot to check in on this thread. It seems as if your entire argument here has to do with Dolezal and Jenner not being mutually exclusive and so you're willing to completely trash all common sense when it comes to Dolezal because you think you've found the perfect parallel to fit your Jenner argument from a month ago. Just because there are parallels does not mean they are the same and making them so is preposterous. What Dolezal did is no different than me deciding that I am a polar bear and I should be treated as such. Rachel Dolezal is no more trans racial than I am transspecies. And I'm not sure what you're doing when it seems that you keep hinting that I, more than anyone else, should ascribe to your lazy ass assertion about Dolezal and her so called identity.
http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2015/06/17/3670801/transracial-adoption-rachel-dolezal-caitlyn-jenner/

Also give me a break with you using the Jenner and Dolezal threads as your sample size about acceptance, what total bullshit. Jenner is universally accepted as transgendered, there is no doubt about that. There is also no doubt that there are people who loved oscar but now considers him less than human. As many parallels that Jenner and Dolezal have this isn't one of them and this is the most important one to this conversation. Virtually everyone who actually knows what being transracial means have at the very least strong doubts about whether or not she actually identifies that way and for good reason. If you want to ignore all of the things this lady has done and not done to make you seem more right about Caitlin Jenner go right ahead, but it seems very intellectually dishonest.

[Kat Kid]

If at this point you still can't see that saying homosexuality is a genetic disorder is unhelpful in describing anything as it is actually occurring on Earth then carry on.

[Kat Kid]

There are theories that homosexual traits benefitted early tribes even if they didn't reproduce. Human tribes and survival are more complex than simple reproduction.

What about reading?  What about wine making?  What about Air Jordan sneakers?

[MakeItRain]

Homosexuals can and do reproduce, at a much larger percentage than the Gooches

holy crap, I just pissed myself

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

There are theories that homosexual traits benefitted early tribes even if they didn't reproduce. Human tribes and survival are more complex than simple reproduction.

What about reading?  What about wine making?  What about Air Jordan sneakers?

Once again, you seem to be conflating society and culture with biology. You can sit back with your book and fine cabernet (wearing air jordans?) and bask in your cultural elightenment, but none of that goes very far towards propagating the human race unless you are making little humans to replace you. I am talking about biology only.

[michigancat]

There are theories that homosexual traits benefitted early tribes even if they didn't reproduce. Human tribes and survival are more complex than simple reproduction.

What about reading?  What about wine making?  What about Air Jordan sneakers?

Once again, you seem to be conflating society and culture with biology. You can sit back with your book and fine cabernet (wearing air jordans?) and bask in your cultural elightenment, but none of that goes very far towards propagating the human race unless you are making little humans to replace you. I am talking about biology only.

You can't separate human culture from the species' biological evolution. They are completely entwined - humans would not become the dominant species in the world without their culture.

[8manpick]

Homosexuals can and do reproduce, at a much larger percentage than the Gooches

As I've said repeatedly, the question is not whether homosexuals can reproduce - of course they can. But if homosexuals are significantly less likely to reproduce than heterosexuals (is anyone going to argue against that?), and if reproduction is the primary biological imperitive of a species (anyone going to argue agaisnt that?), then I think it stands to reason that homosexuality is biological disorder. If you want to quible over use of the word "disorder," that's fine.

Reproduction (but more importantly, sustaining the species) as the primary biological imperative of the species does not mandate that producing progeny be the primary biological imperative of each individual within the species.

[Kat Kid]

There are theories that homosexual traits benefitted early tribes even if they didn't reproduce. Human tribes and survival are more complex than simple reproduction.

What about reading?  What about wine making?  What about Air Jordan sneakers?

Once again, you seem to be conflating society and culture with biology. You can sit back with your book and fine cabernet (wearing air jordans?) and bask in your cultural elightenment, but none of that goes very far towards propagating the human race unless you are making little humans to replace you. I am talking about biology only.

Is biology really the best lens through which to view the human condition?  Human behavior?  Kind of nihilistic, isn't it?  Don't you believe we have a higher calling?

[michigancat]

Homosexuals can and do reproduce, at a much larger percentage than the Gooches

As I've said repeatedly, the question is not whether homosexuals can reproduce - of course they can. But if homosexuals are significantly less likely to reproduce than heterosexuals (is anyone going to argue against that?), and if reproduction is the primary biological imperitive of a species (anyone going to argue agaisnt that?), then I think it stands to reason that homosexuality is biological disorder. If you want to quible over use of the word "disorder," that's fine.

Reproduction (but more importantly, sustaining the species) as the primary biological imperative of the species does not mandate that producing progeny be the primary biological imperative of each individual within the species.

Tell it to the bees

[8manpick]

Homosexuals can and do reproduce, at a much larger percentage than the Gooches

As I've said repeatedly, the question is not whether homosexuals can reproduce - of course they can. But if homosexuals are significantly less likely to reproduce than heterosexuals (is anyone going to argue against that?), and if reproduction is the primary biological imperitive of a species (anyone going to argue agaisnt that?), then I think it stands to reason that homosexuality is biological disorder. If you want to quible over use of the word "disorder," that's fine.

Reproduction (but more importantly, sustaining the species) as the primary biological imperative of the species does not mandate that producing progeny be the primary biological imperative of each individual within the species.

Tell it to the bees

Worker bees have a disorder, obvs

[sys]

I forgot to check in on this thread. It seems as if your entire argument here has to do with Dolezal and Jenner not being mutually exclusive and so you're willing to completely trash all common sense when it comes to Dolezal because you think you've found the perfect parallel to fit your Jenner argument from a month ago.

i'd argue that common sense makes clear the parallel.  since "common sense" seems not to lead to similar conclusions, perhaps each of us should rely less on such lazy phrasing and make our arguments for and against parallels more explicit.

i'll start with the fairly broad - both situations involve a person claiming an identity (identity, essentially meaning the person that they would prefer other people to see and treat them as) which does not correspond to reality.  to me, that pretty much starts and ends the discussion.  if you feel there are nuances that distinguish one situation from the other, feel free to highlight them.

What Dolezal did is no different than me deciding that I am a polar bear and I should be treated as such. Rachel Dolezal is no more trans racial than I am transspecies.

and jenner is not a woman.  if you sincerely wished to be thought of and treated as a polar bear, i'd agree that your case could be added to the discussion as another parallel.

And I'm not sure what you're doing when it seems that you keep hinting that I, more than anyone else, should ascribe to your lazy ass assertion about Dolezal and her so called identity.

i have not hinted that.

Also give me a break with you using the Jenner and Dolezal threads as your sample size about acceptance, what total bullshit.

i considered it more fair that considering external opinions, since anything i looked for outside of this board would be subject to selection bias.  furthermore, the population of interest to me is the posters on this board.  i'm already aware that there are people in the world that believe all manner of idiocies.  for the most part, this board is used by reasonable people that, in very broad terms, see the world similarly to how i do.  their opinions interest me far more than the opinions of a broader population.

Virtually everyone who actually knows what being transracial means have at the very least strong doubts about whether or not she actually identifies that way and for good reason.

go ahead and list those reasons.

If you want to ignore all of the things this lady has done and not done to make you seem more right about Caitlin Jenner go right ahead, but it seems very intellectually dishonest.

we are not evaluating the quality of person of either dolezal or jenner.  i don't recall anyone making the argument that only people of acceptable character can claim to be transgender.

[sys]

reproduction is the primary biological imperitive of a species (anyone going to argue against that?)

reproduction is the primary imperative of the individual (more properly of the gene).  the species is not united by any common imperative to reproduce.  i derive no benefit if you reproduce.  you derive no benefit if i do.

[Mr Bread]

The problem is not that this lady is transracial, but that she is a liar. When she got found out she didn't simply say, "Yes I am biologically white but I identify as black because of my life experiences." No, she dances around questions and she says, "There is no proof that I am really the daughter of the parents whose names are on my birth certificate." She made up hate crimes to either seem more black or just be a victim.

the dishonesty is off-putting.

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

There are theories that homosexual traits benefitted early tribes even if they didn't reproduce. Human tribes and survival are more complex than simple reproduction.

What about reading?  What about wine making?  What about Air Jordan sneakers?

Once again, you seem to be conflating society and culture with biology. You can sit back with your book and fine cabernet (wearing air jordans?) and bask in your cultural elightenment, but none of that goes very far towards propagating the human race unless you are making little humans to replace you. I am talking about biology only.

You can't separate human culture from the species' biological evolution. They are completely entwined - humans would not become the dominant species in the world without their culture.

Thats a nice sentiment. It probably seemed really wise and profound as you typed it. Only it's not even remotely true. "Yup, without our culture the dolphins or gorillas would have been our overlords."

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

reproduction is the primary biological imperitive of a species (anyone going to argue against that?)

reproduction is the primary imperative of the individual (more properly of the gene).  the species is not united by any common imperative to reproduce.  i derive no benefit if you reproduce.  you derive no benefit if i do.

Except that the species goes extinct without it. So it's pretty important. Like, the most important.

[sys]

Thats a nice sentiment. It probably seemed really wise and profound as you typed it. Only it's not even remotely true.

it's completely true.  you may not understand what is meant by culture.  go try and survive a year without access to human culture.

[sys]

The species goes extinct without it. But otherwise, I totally agree. So in other words, I totally disagree.

the species does not care if it goes extinct.  the individual (the gene) does.  that's the difference.

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

Thats a nice sentiment. It probably seemed really wise and profound as you typed it. Only it's not even remotely true.

it's completely true.  you may not understand what is meant by culture.  go try and survive a year without access to human culture.

Gorillas and dolphins have culture too. I guess they just don't have as much?

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

The species goes extinct without it. But otherwise, I totally agree. So in other words, I totally disagree.

the species does not care if it goes extinct.  the individual (the gene) does.  that's the difference.

Now you're quibling over semantics.

[Rage Against the McKee]

Thats a nice sentiment. It probably seemed really wise and profound as you typed it. Only it's not even remotely true.

it's completely true.  you may not understand what is meant by culture.  go try and survive a year without access to human culture.

Gorillas and dolphins have culture too. I guess they just don't have as much?

Yes, that is correct.

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

There are theories that homosexual traits benefitted early tribes even if they didn't reproduce. Human tribes and survival are more complex than simple reproduction.

What about reading?  What about wine making?  What about Air Jordan sneakers?

Once again, you seem to be conflating society and culture with biology. You can sit back with your book and fine cabernet (wearing air jordans?) and bask in your cultural elightenment, but none of that goes very far towards propagating the human race unless you are making little humans to replace you. I am talking about biology only.

Is biology really the best lens through which to view the human condition?  Human behavior?  Kind of nihilistic, isn't it?  Don't you believe we have a higher calling?

I don't disagree with you, but that's a completely different issue. That is why I have made quite clear that I am only talking from a biological perspective.