Naked Science Forum
Life Sciences => Physiology & Medicine => Topic started by: Jolly on 05/03/2017 21:14:40
-
I was watching a short discussion the other day and one of the speakers stated that "Science is behind the statement that "there is no gender, save the one we choose for ourselves"
Was wondering what scientists had to say about the claim?
-
It is true that a lot of the more extreme gender differences disappear when you disguise the gender of the participants (whether musical performers, writers, job applicants, etc etc). The same can be said about skin color. These are rather subjective measures, and can be subtly influenced by our expectations.
It is also true that we impose our expectations on young children via family, school and media models. So girls may not want to go into science, engineering or mathematics, even if they have a real talent for it.
However, science does detect small but solid gender differences in more objective measures that are less influenced by our expectations, like height, mass and brain volume, . The physical measurements are unlikely to be influenced by family expectations. (Brain volume does not imply increased intelligence, it is merely that you need more neurons to control a larger body.)
It is also detects small gender differences in spatial reasoning skills, verbal skills and social skills in IQ tests, but with these it is harder to untangle innate abilities from family and peer group expectations and behavior..
Sexual dimorphism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_dimorphism) is a real thing; it is slight but real in humans, but unmissable in some other species like seals.
-
Male and Female differs by an X or Y chromosome, with the difference composed of lots of gene. There is a significant genetic difference induced at birth. The idea of overriding this much genetic difference, implies mind over matter. If you are a male who thinks you are a female, and decide to remove your [:I], your are symbolically excising genes.
Gender designation appears to be a product of the mind and brain, since it does not necessarily have to coordinate with all the genes that define the protein behind hardware differences. This has a connection to free will and choice. For example, it is not uncommon for a child to pretend they are flying like a bird, or crawling on all fours, barking, pretending to be a dog. This is not due to species re-identification. They don't have bird or dog genes, but they can nevertheless pretend to be a bird or dog, in a heart felt way.
The imagination can generate such content, and even project this into play. If the child continued this play, into adolescence and then into adulthood, it would not be looked upon in the same way, as a small child doing this. What is natural for a child, may not optimize the adult to the needs of culture. I would not expect a social movement to force insurance companies to cover the costs of installing wings or adding a tail, to complete the animal reassignment. It would be considered odd.
There is a subculture called, furries , who are adults who dress up like animals. This shows what the imagination can do in terms of species reassignment. If we defined this as natural, many would get surgery, especially if we could get insurance to paid for it. It would save on costume costs in the long run.
A child who plays policeman or doctor, is also being driven by their imagination. This can be induced by and then reinforced by the environment. This type of imaginary play is more socially acceptable, and can perpetuate into a self reliant career choice. They may not be born this way and we may never find a police or doctor gene, but they can play the role in a heart felt way.
This dynamics has to do wth the personality firmware, which underly and define our human nature. The firmware are layered, from the conscious mind, all the way to the inner self, which is the center of the unconscious mind. The firmware layers, as an analogy, are very loosely analogous to planets orbiting the inner self; sun. These planets or layers can become pseudo-centers which can create a relative reference affect. The inner self is still the center, with the inner self optimized to all our genes. Normally these satellites are temporary, but they can be reinforced by the ego; will power and choice. One can feel centered, but it is not with the optimized center and all the genes.
As another analogy, say you flew to the moon, to be part of a long term moon colony project. At first, your mind would think in term of the POV of the earth; center. Eventually, if you stayed long enough, your mind will recenter itself relative to the moon. The movement of the moon around the earth makes the patterns of the stars look different. This would be odd from the earth and when you first arrive, but it can become normal to you if out stay long enough.
You can induce this in yourself if you wish first hand data. You may not be able to see this, as easily, using third person science, which is why third person science can't fully define this once and for all time. They can't look through the eyes of such a person, but rather will still be looking from the earth, trying to imagine the new star patterns being normal, which adds a level of subjectivity.
-
Humans cannot change their gender they can only attempt to remove or hide their gender
-
Sex is what you are. Most people have XX (female) or XY (male) chromosomes. Every cell in your body is the sex that your father's sperm decided for you. You can't change sex (though some other species can).
Gender is how you want to behave and have other people to respond to you. You can be masculine, feminine, or anything in between. The majority of XXs prefer to be feminine, the majority of XYs prefer to be masculine, but the lines of dress and behaviour are very fluid in western society.
If you wish, you can have your visible genitalia and breasts enhanced, removed, or remodelled. This is usually done to align a person's appearance with his/her chosen gender.
Note the cautious use of "usually". There are various anomalies of chromosomes, appearance, hormones and behavior. What matters is that the person feels content with the mix.
-
"Masculine" and "Feminine" is sexist propaganda intended to divide similar minded people who require opposite sex organs to exist. What we have today is a massive excess of people with dysfunctional sex organs as a result of the rapid inflation of our population caused by a perfect storm of religion and technology who are now being encouraged to spread their dysfunctional sex genes by western society.
-
There are very few people with "dysfunctional" sex genes. The commonest variant is Downs syndrome, affecting about 1 in 1000. Downs kids are generally affectionate and good company.
Religion is disgusting and caused by bad upbringing - nothing to do with chromosomes.
-
There are very few people with "dysfunctional" sex genes. The commonest variant is Downs syndrome, affecting about 1 in 1000. Downs kids are generally affectionate and good company.
Religion is disgusting and caused by bad upbringing - nothing to do with chromosomes.
Orgasm would not exist if senseless duplication was our intended function, beside that I said dysfunctional organs not corrupt genes/chromosomes
-
There is no intended function. We exist because that's how chemistry works on this planet.
-
There is no intended function. We exist because that's how chemistry works on this planet.
Sex resulting in orgasm is the chemical reaction were intending to replicate.
-
As you imply 5th, the orgasm seems primarily responsible for reproduction, Otherwise we wouldn't do it. Why replicate successors to yourself, if it makes you die?
Could neurologists abolish the orgasm? I mean could they find a nerve to cut, which would stop it. Is any work being done in this field?
-
There seems to be some confusion here. To the best of my recollection (it was a few hours ago, but old men forget) human orgasm is rarely fatal. Indeed, going back a few years, if memory serves, replication wasn't fatal either.
That said, I can't think of a better way to shuffle off this mortal coil than in the throes of sexual ecstacy. Bring it on!
-
As you imply 5th, the orgasm seems primarily responsible for reproduction, Otherwise we wouldn't do it. Why replicate successors to yourself, if it makes you die?
Could neurologists abolish the orgasm? I mean could they find a nerve to cut, which would stop it. Is any work being done in this field?
The natural purpose of sex is reproduction. Trace back the evolution of sexual differentiation to see what the original intent was. This is the natural means to blend genes and add variation in offspring. The pleasure of sex, such as an orgasm, is the carrot that helps lead the horse to the water. The pleasure can help lead us to the primary objective.There are a lot of people who are not trying to get pregnant, but nevertheless get pregnant, because the pleasure lead them to reproduction. The abortion industry exists because of this.
Food is needed to feed the energy and nutritional needs of the cells of the body. The pleasure of eating is a carrot on the string to assure we meet the primary objective. If all food tasted like toilet waste, people would only eat when near starvation; the primary would take over.
When you reverse cause and affect and call the secondary, the primary, things start to get messed up. If you ate only for pleasure, with no regards to nutrition, the body becomes weakened. One can still survive this way, but a constant chocolate cake diet, although pleasurable, is not a long term diet. The natural animal will find pleasure in its natural food, so both criteria are satisfied. Humans have choice and free will and can mess up this balance if they reverse the order of the primary and secondary. If we maintain the proper order and only ate bland food with high nutritional value, although pleasure is not satisfied the body can still be optimized.
As another example, prescription pain killers are designed to alleviate pain. This is the primary objective for these drugs. These are not designed with pleasure in mind, albeit, they can give pleasure to some people. Those who place the secondary first; pleasure, are the ones most likely to become addicted. This is no longer called weak willed, but a disease to justify effect before cause. When you mess up cause and affect, you pay the price. Those who place pain first, are less likely to become addicted, if the pain is real and not excuse for pleasure.
If you look at alternate sexual orientations, where the body does not match the choice of orientation, this is the secondary placed ahead of the primary. Sex its pleasurable, with the pleasure of sex able to be derived from both organic and mechanical means. Like the pleasure of chocolate or vanilla cake, pleasure first can become addictive while not satisfying the primary objective. This can lead to obsessive behavior.
The university system is slanted left. This is not news. The leftist tend to believe in relative behavior defined by statistics and not absolute reference and behavior, as defined by cause and affect. This means that reason is placed secondary to emotions. They don;t wish to hurt anyones feelings, therefore they will justify behavior based on altruistic intent, and make up a reasonable scenario. The universities do a lot of research, with the results tailored to the needs of their POV, which is not rational, but more statistical, which allows anything to go, if there are odds,
-
The natural purpose of sex is reproduction.
Let's say that this is true. Why should we care? Humans do all kinds of things without regard for the natural purpose. Pet animals may be said to have some kind of "natural purpose" in their existence, but we clearly shouldn't use them for that purpose, but we should use them a pets. Food crops had an original "purpose" to feed some organism, but clearly humans shouldn't stop eating all the food that was not originally "purposed" to feed some other animal.
People in this "debate" like to throw around how the supposed natural world is without actually caring about the nature of that world or the actual needs and desires of human beings.
When we talk about sex differences, that might be one thing with some physical differences. But when we talk about gender, we are talking about how people live out their lives. That is entirely social. We have seen huge changes to the gender behavior of men in the last four hundred years. For example, how many men wear powdered wigs today?
The pleasure of sex, such as an orgasm, is the carrot that helps lead the horse to the water. The pleasure can help lead us to the primary objective.There are a lot of people who are not trying to get pregnant, but nevertheless get pregnant, because the pleasure lead them to reproduction.
Now we see what people like puppypower are really on about: they want to control people, mostly women, and stop them from enjoying themselves in ways that puppypower doesn't enjoy.
When you reverse cause and affect and call the secondary, the primary, things start to get messed up. If you ate only for pleasure, with no regards to nutrition, the body becomes weakened. One can still survive this way, but a constant chocolate cake diet, although pleasurable, is not a long term diet. The natural animal will find pleasure in its natural food, so both criteria are satisfied. Humans have choice and free will and can mess up this balance if they reverse the order of the primary and secondary. If we maintain the proper order and only ate bland food with high nutritional value, although pleasure is not satisfied the body can still be optimized.
But notice that there is a huge difference in this analogy that puppypower wants you to ignore: if you only have sex for pleasure, you won't die. If you do not reproduce, then you are free to continue leading your life. It seems that, to puppypower, if you are not leading a life where you are reproducing, you might as well be dead.
As another example, prescription pain killers are designed to alleviate pain. This is the primary objective for these drugs. These are not designed with pleasure in mind, albeit, they can give pleasure to some people. Those who place the secondary first; pleasure, are the ones most likely to become addicted. This is no longer called weak willed, but a disease to justify effect before cause. When you mess up cause and affect, you pay the price. Those who place pain first, are less likely to become addicted, if the pain is real and not excuse for pleasure.
Of course, puppypower wants to blame the victims of painkiller addiction for their addiction. Yet study after study has shown that the recent epidemic of painkiller addiction comes from those who use them to treat legitimate pain under a doctor's care. Again, here is someone trying to control the lives of other people, who views addicts, women, and people following gender roles other than those puppypower approves as less than human.
The university system is slanted left. This is not news. The leftist tend to believe in relative behavior defined by statistics and not absolute reference and behavior, as defined by cause and affect.
Sadly for puppypower, the universe is slanted left. The behavior of humans is something that is not the same for all people; what might cause one person to behave in one way may not cause everyone to behave in that way. puppypower is trying to identify the people who do not behave in the same way as subhuman.
This means that reason is placed secondary to emotions. They don;t wish to hurt anyones feelings, therefore they will justify behavior based on altruistic intent, and make up a reasonable scenario. The universities do a lot of research, with the results tailored to the needs of their POV, which is not rational, but more statistical, which allows anything to go, if there are odds,
Yes, puppypower is actually recommending here, as puppypower has done elsewhere, that everyone abandon statistics. This means that none of the "facts" that puppypower is presenting are based on any research involving statistics. This means that everything that puppypower has been saying is entirely devoid of scientific support.
-
You are the one making emotional judgements. I am being logical. I am showing how there is a pattern, in terms of all instincts, where there is an underlying primary goal and a secondary incentive. Addictions occur when you reverse the sequence. There is an old saying that the servant; secondary, will become the master.
I am not saying it is not fun to have sex, without reproduction in mind. I also not saying it is not fun to eat cheese cake even if your goal is to be healthy and fit. What I am saying is if you keep in mind the primary objective for each instinct, you can form a balance that will not lead you into the realm of unnatural instincts. If you deny there is a primary but assume the secondary is the same, this is not healthy in the long term. You can manage this in the short term, but long term needs a natural foundation.
With food, anyone conscious of nutrition, will not live by the carrot on the string. You can;t just eat what touched you fancy and expect to be healthy. Those who care nothing of nutrition, may choose this life style. You can go decades eating junk food, because the body is flexible, but this is not as optimized in the long term. It leads to extra socials ocrs others have to pick up.
As far as gender designation, the primary is based on the biology of the body. The secondary allows more choices, since this is grounded on pleasure. Pleasure of sex can be satisfied, by some, with a blow up doll, a barn yard critter, a machine, etc. None of these will lead you to the primary; reproduction, therefore, one is never centered, properly. One can go years off center. But it is useful to know where the center is.
The leftist leadership benefits by dependency, while being off center, helps create the needed dependency. Self reliance, which is more of a conservative term, benefits by being on center. The Church and morality was about the center and was often harsh with the secondary desire aspects of sex, because many people get stuck at the secondary and remain off center. They do not wish to know there is a center then common sense will conflict with emotions and compulsions.
-
But notice that there is a huge difference in this analogy that puppypower wants you to ignore: if you only have sex for pleasure, you won't die. If you do not reproduce, then you are free to continue leading your life. It seems that, to puppypower, if you are not leading a life where you are reproducing, you might as well be dead.
Nevertheless, a life of sex only for pleasure carries a risk of negative consequences in the life you are free to continue to lead, and even afterward. There are well-documented disease risks associated with a life of promiscuity or "gay" living. Either of these manners of living probably may well close the door to those benefits of marriage that go beyond the bed. Also, a life of childlessness eventually means that the person will have no children, at least none associated with his/her personal lifestyle, which can have negative implications for preparedness for old age, and if many people in a society choose to live this way, the demographic consequences for the economy can be ruinous, eventually undermining the social insurance systems that the public had depended upon to support them.
-
Of course, puppypower wants to blame the victims of painkiller addiction for their addiction. Yet study after study has shown that the recent epidemic of painkiller addiction comes from those who use them to treat legitimate pain under a doctor's care. Again, here is someone trying to control the lives of other people, who views addicts, women, and people following gender roles other than those puppypower approves as less than human.
A person who becomes addicted because he/she has taken painkillers under prescription to treat pain, is nonetheless addicted. This is not a desirable outcome; but the prescribing physician has to weigh that risk against the alternative. Addicting painkillers may be suitable for pain victims by reason that the alternative is worse, but that does not make them suitable for other people, nor something that ought to be recommended in the general diet.
-
You are the one making emotional judgements.
Yes, I am making judgments. You have a number of reactionary opinions that you are trying to force on others and you are using really, really incorrect science to do so.
I am being logical. I am showing how there is a pattern, in terms of all instincts, where there is an underlying primary goal and a secondary incentive.
You are doing poor, non-empirical armchair psychology and biology. Because you fail to like certain things, you want to bar them from everyone and just because you see a pattern doesn't mean that it's especially meaningful.
Addictions occur when you reverse the sequence.
So you claim, in defiance of the actual studies out there on addiction.
There is an old saying that the servant; secondary, will become the master.
Who cares that you can find weird old sayings? That is not science.
I am not saying it is not fun to have sex, without reproduction in mind.
Of course not. You're just saying that people who have sex for a purpose other than reproduction should be punished. That is your particular sick belief. And yes, I am judging you.
I also not saying it is not fun to eat cheese cake even if your goal is to be healthy and fit. What I am saying is if you keep in mind the primary objective for each instinct, you can form a balance that will not lead you into the realm of unnatural instincts. If you deny there is a primary but assume the secondary is the same, this is not healthy in the long term. You can manage this in the short term, but long term needs a natural foundation.
You are wrong, because humans are not simply machines; humans, even the people you view as subhuman, have deeper desires and goals than merely to function at peak physical efficiency. So even if there was a downside to having sex without reproducing, which there isn't, you would still be wrong because it might be worth it for some human being.
As far as gender designation, the primary is based on the biology of the body. The secondary allows more choices, since this is grounded on pleasure.
No. Gender is about how humans behave. There is nothing biological about men wearing pants and women wearing dresses. There is nothing that has to do with a set of testicles that makes someone utter the sounds that make the phrase "mister". People who want to identify with certain behaviors--male, female, or other--do not do so because of sexual pleasure.
Only those people who want to stop people from behaving in ways that they do not like try to so vehemently deny the reality of gender in the social world. They try to hide behind (bad) biology so that they won't be judged as they try to not only judge others, but force people to accept only their judgement.
Pleasure of sex can be satisfied, by some, with a blow up doll, a barn yard critter, a machine, etc. None of these will lead you to the primary; reproduction, therefore, one is never centered, properly. One can go years off center. But it is useful to know where the center is.
Yes, and in your case the center is hate.
The leftist leadership benefits by dependency, while being off center, helps create the needed dependency. Self reliance, which is more of a conservative term, benefits by being on center.
This is the fallacy of equivocation. puppypower is attempting to change the meaning of the word "center" from one passage to another. Regardless, puppypower is as false here as on any topic.
-
But notice that there is a huge difference in this analogy that puppypower wants you to ignore: if you only have sex for pleasure, you won't die. If you do not reproduce, then you are free to continue leading your life. It seems that, to puppypower, if you are not leading a life where you are reproducing, you might as well be dead.
Nevertheless, a life of sex only for pleasure carries a risk of negative consequences in the life you are free to continue to lead, and even afterward. There are well-documented disease risks associated with a life of promiscuity or "gay" living.
And what limits these risks? Education. When people have information about how to go about their sex lives in a way that protects themselves and others, they are able to do so. Yet we have people who try to refuse to let anyone actually know about how to be healthier in sexual practice.
Either of these manners of living probably may well close the door to those benefits of marriage that go beyond the bed.
Even if they do, who cares? Not everyone wants to get married.
Also, a life of childlessness eventually means that the person will have no children, at least none associated with his/her personal lifestyle, which can have negative implications for preparedness for old age, and if many people in a society choose to live this way, the demographic consequences for the economy can be ruinous, eventually undermining the social insurance systems that the public had depended upon to support them.
I have no idea what you think your reasoning is here. There are many, many people in the world. There will always be people in the world. If you are saying that society should not care for the elderly that do not have living children, then you are simply a monster.