Bill Nye The Idiot Guy

[seer]

I know, you only have to follow the laws you like and ignore the ones you don't. Do you own any clothes made from two different fabrics?

Beagle, since you keep lying about my beliefs after I already explained them please leave this thread.

[Leonhard]

when you have to resort to very rare mutations to argue for your point you have just shot your argument in the head.

I'm not sure what you think my "point" was. I wasn't arguing Bill Nye's point if that is what you're thinking. Just raising a particular point I find important, and that I never see gender essentialists properly address.

There is nothing wrong with my argument. You were making a fallacy that sex is determined either by chromosomes or a "cultural fantasy". Whereas I would argue that genitals, secondary sexual characteristics as well as mentality, holistically have the sexual character.

I offered you a woman, undeniably female. Both primary and secondary sexual characteristics in place, was identified as female at birth, never identified herself as anything else, grew up, developed like an ordinary female, went through puberty and is almost indistinguishable from a normal woman except for things revealed in a gynecological exam. The only significant difference is that she is inherently infertile, she has testes instead of ovaries, and every single one of her cells is stamped with an XY chromosome.

I don't think gender essentialists have a coherent response yet to what this means, and I agree. It's a highly atypical result. In 99.99% of all cases, chromosomes do determine a person's sex. But they are not equivalent with it. In order for me to disprove that chromosomes aren't the essence of our sexuality, all I have to find is one case where this is false. Not a common one. I just have to find a sole example.

(Image of two types of androgen insensitivity syndrome - Warning: Clinical depictions of nudity. Posted with permission of Sparko)
https://image.slidesharecdn.com/andr...?cb=1277276382

[Sparko]

So if I can find a Christian that states Christians are promiscuous will you accept it as true?

That wasn't the point. The point was he is a homosexual psychologist talking about studies on homosexuals. You think he wouldn't notice that a fact he was using in his article was based on a faulty study? He lists his sources at the end of the article.

[Crackerjack]

That has been a common hypothesis among evolutionary biologists regarding homosexuality. They have pointed to cultures like Samoa, where homosexual men have a cultural role of participating actively in family and community life to assist others.

Wrong. The Gay Uncle hypothesis has long been dropped. For it to work, a typical gay would have to have at least five nieces or nephews to compensate for his lack of progeny. Tell me where are they? And since when are gays and lesbians highly devoted to their nieces and nephews? And by this I mean a love that's stronger than the mother's.

Um, haven't you read Paul's praise for celibacy as the ideal? And aren't you aware of the idealization of celibacy among Christians in the first millennium AD?

Yes, but that's neither here nor there. Let's stick to the topic.

[Starlight]

The Gay Uncle hypothesis has long been dropped.

Last I heard, a couple of years ago, there were some serious questions about it. I don't think it's true to say that it's "long" been "dropped".

For it to work, a typical gay would have to have at least five nieces or nephews to compensate for his lack of progeny.

Okay, well historically at least that strikes me as a small number. Lots of families had ~7 children. As a Catholic you'd know well that families can get quite large without contraception. So it wouldn't be unreasonable to suppose that historically the typical gay uncle in evolutionary history might have had 30+ nieces and nephews. Of course that dynamic typically no longer holds and family size now tends to mostly be in the 2-3 children range. Of course, today, gay people are more able to actually have children of their own through surrogacy etc.

Yes, but that's neither here nor there. Let's stick to the topic.

I think it's worth dwelling for a moment on the total lack of logical consistency in your arguments, thus unearthing that it is sheer homophobia rather than rationality that is driving you. You acknowledge that (a) in the bible, (b) among Christians of the first millenium, and (c) among Catholic priests, there are teachings of celibacy and commitments to celibacy. But you claim that that is okay and fine and good because of <insert ad hoc rationalization on your part here>, yet you asserted as the primary reason why gay people are "abnormal" (and implied, "bad") is their lack of progeny.

While I am somewhat sympathetic to the general argument that the earth is overpopulated and thus that we have a moral obligation not to have children or not to have too many children, the simple fact of the matter is that modern science allows LGBT people to have as many children as they like, and thus their progeny or lack of them are controlled by their decision rather than their sexuality. So I don't think it would be reasonable to argue that gay people inherently morally superior to straight people for that reason.

[Jorge]

So this passes for science today?

Yup --- this is what modern "science" inevitably leads to, something that a certain
TWebber (a guy named Jorge) has been stating for many years here on TWeb.

If I were Nye (and I thank God I'm not) I'd retire forevermore. He is d-o-n-e!

Jorge

[Crackerjack]

Last I heard, a couple of years ago, there were some serious questions about it. I don't think it's true to say that it's "long" been "dropped".

Can you name one larger name that still defends it? A biologist? Evolutionary psychologist?

I think it's worth dwelling for a moment on the total lack of logical consistency in your arguments, thus unearthing that it is sheer homophobia rather than rationality that is driving you. You acknowledge that (a) in the bible, (b) among Christians of the first millenium, and (c) among Catholic priests, there are teachings of celibacy and commitments to celibacy. But you claim that that is okay and fine and good because of <insert ad hoc rationalization on your part here>, yet you asserted as the primary reason why gay people are "abnormal" (and implied, "bad") is their lack of progeny.

Sorry, but this isn't an ad hoc hypothesis of mine. Go look up Darwin's Cathedral by David Sloan Wilson. The fact of the matter is that there are no similar plausible explanations for homosexuality as an adaptive trait. I believe there won't be any forthcoming because homosexuality, unlike religion, isn't an adaptation. It's a disorder. A disorder that became normal for political reasons. This is something very politically incorrect to say, but I prefer truth to political correctness.

[Tassman]

Can you name one larger name that still defends it? A biologist? Evolutionary psychologist?



Sorry, but this isn't an ad hoc hypothesis of mine. Go look up Darwin's Cathedral by David Sloan Wilson. The fact of the matter is that there are no similar plausible explanations for homosexuality as an adaptive trait. I believe there won't be any forthcoming because homosexuality, unlike religion, isn't an adaptation. It's a disorder. A disorder that became normal for political reasons. This is something very politically incorrect to say, but I prefer truth to political correctness.

It's a "disorder" only because your religion says it is. Homosexuality is commonplace throughout the natural world and has been throughout history. So to dismiss it as an abnormality is clearly wrong. It is just as "normal" as say, left-handed people are.

[seer]

It's a "disorder" only because your religion says it is. Homosexuality is commonplace throughout the natural world and has been throughout history. So to dismiss it as an abnormality is clearly wrong. It is just as "normal" as say, left-handed people are.

Yet, I was born left handed, but was trained to be right handed. And now I'm right hand dominate. So I guess we could we could train homosexuals to be straight - and can you show me any animal that is exclusively sexual with the same sex, that never mates with the opposite sex? I only know of one.

[Tassman]

Yet, I was born left handed, but was trained to be right handed. And now I'm right hand dominate. So I guess we could we could train homosexuals to be straight - and can you show me any animal that is exclusively sexual with the same sex, that never mates with the opposite sex? I only know of one.

Reparative therapy, so-called, is a dangerous and discredited practice. Better to "train" Christians to be more accepting.

[seer]

Reparative therapy, so-called, is a dangerous and discredited practice. Better to "train" Christians to be more accepting.

Why, my left handedness was changed with no ill effect, and you compared homosexuality to left handedness. And you did not comment on the fact that we don't find exclusive homosexuality in the animal kingdom.

[Starlight]

It's a disorder. A disorder that became normal for political reasons. This is something very politically incorrect to say, but I prefer truth to political correctness.

I don't think you have much interest in truth on the subject. I think you're just a homophobe because your religion has taught you to be.

[Roy]

Why, my left handedness was changed with no ill effect, and you compared homosexuality to left handedness. And you did not comment on the fact that we don't find exclusive homosexuality in the animal kingdom.

Possibly because it's not a fact. We do find exclusive homosexuality in the animal kingdom. New Mexican whiptails are one example. Domestic sheep and black swans are others.

can you show me any animal that is exclusively sexual with the same sex, that never mates with the opposite sex? I only know of one.

Your carefully preserved ignorance is not an effective argument.

[seer]

Possibly because it's not a fact. We do find exclusive homosexuality in the animal kingdom. New Mexican whiptails are one example. Domestic sheep and black swans are others.

I know about domestic sheep, but that may an anomaly due to generations of breeding. And no one would call the whiptails homosexual, it is asexual reproduction. Would you call bacteria homosexual? As far as black swans, you are correct, there is exclusive homosexual behavior depending on how you define it. Do male swans mate - anally copulate? But these "exclusive" situations are rare, mostly what we find in the animal kingdom is more like bi-sexuality.

Simon LeVay introduced the further caveat that "[a]lthough homosexual behavior is very common in the animal world, it seems to be very uncommon that individual animals have a long-lasting predisposition to engage in such behavior to the exclusion of heterosexual activities. Thus, a homosexual orientation, if one can speak of such thing in animals, seems to be a rarity."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homose...ior_in_animals

This exclusive behavior is not wide spread as Tass suggested.

[Roy]

And you did not comment on the fact that we don't find exclusive homosexuality in the animal kingdom.

Possibly because it's not a fact. We do find exclusive homosexuality in the animal kingdom. New Mexican whiptails are one example. Domestic sheep and black swans are others.

I know about domestic sheep, but that may an anomaly due to generations of breeding.

So you knew about exclusive homosexuality in domestic sheep, but chose to pretend it did not exist.