The sexes are only this:

shmogie said:

Actually there is a known cause for heterosexuality.

If you accept Darwin, evolution caused heterosexuality to propagate the species, it is the norm for the species, all else is aberrant from the standpoint of evolution. Yes, I am quite aware of some twisted evolutionist homosexual apologists who try go make their argument, it fails.

If you accept Judeo Christian theology, the cause is Gods creation of how he intended humans to be, for propagation of the species, and intimacy between a married man and woman.

In either case, I don care who you find attractive and what you do as a result, your life.

Click to expand...

Yes, we know WHY hetrosexuality is needed, species continuance, but we still don't know how the mechanisms for the brain work with regard to opposite sex attraction. The natural fact is some people are born with the predisposition to never be attracted to the opposite sex.

Darwin and monotheistic religion disregards the fact that at least 1,500 animals species have been observed engaging in same-sex matings. Besides the need to reproduce, animals and man both need sex for carnal satisfaction which can be achieved with any type of sexual orientation except asexuality. Sex has two natural roles: making babies and pleasure. Just telephone Dr. Ruth up and ask her, sexually speaking.

Same-sex matings on some occasions as as much part and parcel to the ways of life as is opposite-sex matings. Animals screw whatever they find attractive at the time and whatever is available to screw with the need to fulfill sexual satisfaction. Making babies is never on their realm of thought. It just accidentally occurs at random. There is nothing aberrant in nature about any kind of sexual orientation: the simple fact is, several different kinds of sexual orientation do in fact occur in nature.

Mother Nature never made most any sexual species "gay-proof". If she had, same-sex matings would simply never occur otherwise so how do you explain the fact that same-sex matings do actually occur? Because same-sex matings do indeed happen in the wilds, they are quite natural. It's purely illogical to say same-sex matings are unnatural.

Abrahamic theology disregards many truths about Mother Nature. My mother told me that the men who wrote the bible were largely ignorant misogynistic old geezers (high on cannabis) but she also said Jesus Christ was good man who taught many good things and I do believe that though I question the fairy-tale aspect of Christianity.

I don't readily accept Darwin evolution or know it for a fact, I don't accept some things taught in religion: I accept Mother Nature right the way she is. Love it or hate it, same-sex matings are a part of it all.

There are just many homophobic idiots in this world waving a bible around.

Left Coast said:

And the birth sex of an individual is not indicative of whether their brain is actually structured and functions in accordance with that sex. Thus it does not tell us whether the person is transgender, which is the whole point of the example.


Yes, we all know sex chromosomes, for the most part, indicate a biological sex. Every transgender person I've met understands this.


First of all, gender dysphoria and homosexuality are different things.
Second, no one is claiming either of those traits are caused by a single gene. The genetic causes of complex, nuanced psychological traits are, similarly, complex and nuanced. Add in the reality of epigenetics and the picture is even less black and white. Which is why the silly, reductive, "But what sex chromosomes do they have??" response misses the point so widely.


I know! It's almost like they're doing science, not declaring black and white dogma.


And no one thinks they're literally changing their biological sex. You're arguing against a strawman. They are changing their body and external appearance, to the extent possible/feasible, to match how their brain actually functions and is structured, within their cultural context that defines masculinity and femininity.


And trans people who look like that are aware of that. They're not stupid. They are acutely aware of exactly how "passable" they are when they go out in public. There are limitations, especially based on how much money they have, to how much they can feasibly change their appearance.
So it's your choice, as a cis dude, how much of a d*** you're going to be to those people, by for example intentionally not using the name or pronouns they prefer, or voting in favor of laws that prevent them from using the public bathroom they want.

Click to expand...

Science has given no clear, accepted, physiological reasons for folk like this, I have looked at lot of the research, and for the most part it is a chimera, speculation without substantive evidence.

Of course it is a psychological issue, I am not debating that in the least.

My daughters are adults now, but if a man whipped it out in the womens/girls bathroom they were using when they were young, he and I would have a very, very frank conversation.

What he wants doesn´t cancel what I want, nor does it take precedence over what I and most child psychologists say is best for my children.

No doubt these people have ¨passed¨ as women, and if they can get away with it, fine, but if the scenario plays out as I suggest it could, the consequences are on their head.

The fantasy can only go so far

Jonathan Bailey said:

Yes, we know WHY hetrosexuality is needed, species continuance, but we still don't know how the mechanisms for the brain work with regard to opposite sex attraction. The natural fact is some people are born with the predisposition to never be attracted to the opposite sex.

Darwin disregards the fact that at least 1,500 animals species have been observed engaging in same-sex matings. Besides the need to reproduce, animals, and man, needs sex for carnal satisfaction which can be achieved with any type of sexual orientation except asexuality. Sex has two natural roles: making babies and pleasure. Just telephone Dr. Ruth up and ask her, sexually speaking.

Click to expand...

Irrelevant as to what Darwin observed. I am sure he observed animals with cancer as well.

You have NO evidence to support the born with scenario.

Sexually speaking then, is pedophilia or necrophilia born with behaviors ? How about rape ?

shmogie said:

Science has given no clear, accepted, physiological reasons for folk like this, I have looked at lot of the research, and for the most part it is a chimera, speculation without substantive evidence.

Click to expand...

It's complicated, because people are complicated. All the more reason not to insist on reductive binary categories to fit everyone into.

My daughters are adults now, but if a man whipped it out in the womens/girls bathroom they were using when they were young, he and I would have a very, very frank conversation.

Click to expand...

Oh Jesus, give me a break. That is still illegal, and always has been. Just the same as if a cisgender adult man "whipped it out" in front of a boy in the men's restroom. These hypotheticals only serve to perpetuate slanderous stereotypes of trans people as some sort of sexual deviants or predators, which there's no evidence for.

shmogie said:

My daughters are adults now, but if a man whipped it out in the womens/girls bathroom they were using when they were young, he and I would have a very, very frank conversation.

Click to expand...

Do you Americans not have lockable stalls in women's bathroom? Why would anyone using those bathrooms expose themselves outside of stalls?
And as a transguy I don't really know the customs of males using urinals (I simply use the stall) but I have never seen anyone there letting other people get even a glimpse of his genitals while peeing.

shmogie said:

Actually there is a known cause for heterosexuality.

If you accept Darwin, evolution caused heterosexuality to propagate the species, it is the norm for the species, all else is aberrant from the standpoint of evolution. Yes, I am quite aware of some twisted evolutionist homosexual apologists who try go make their argument, it fails.

If you accept Judeo Christian theology, the cause is Gods creation of how he intended humans to be, for propagation of the species, and intimacy between a married man and woman.

In either case, I don care who you find attractive and what you do as a result, your life.

Click to expand...

Since evolutionary biology is about history, it's difficult to prove anything there. But from the theories I heard, if some members of a group of animals are not that focused on competing with the others for mating rights that is to the best of the whole group, increasing the chances of those mainly homosexual animals to produce offspring once in a while.
Also, it might not be (fully) innate whether a specific animal becomes homo- or heterosexual, but dependent on external factors.
And if an animal is fully bisexual, then that can easily get inherited.

Liu said:

Do you Americans not have lockable stalls in women's bathroom? Why would anyone using those bathrooms expose themselves outside of stalls?
And as a transguy I don't really know the customs of males using urinals (I simply use the stall) but I have never seen anyone there letting other people get even a glimpse of his genitals while peeing.



Since evolutionary biology is about history, it's difficult to prove anything there. But from the theories I heard, if some members of a group of animals are not that focused on competing with the others for mating rights that is to the best of the whole group, increasing the chances of those mainly homosexual animals to produce offspring once in a while.
Also, it might not be (fully) innate whether a specific animal becomes homo- or heterosexual, but dependent on external factors.
And if an animal is fully bisexual, then that can easily get inherited.

Click to expand...

With some human males, it just might be that they find the appearance of a penis, scrotum and testicles to be more exciting than the appearance of a vagina. They might also find a deep voice more arousing than a high voice. With mankind, there is a lot of psychology and emotion attached to sexual attraction. Sexual attraction may be more instinct in lower animals. Some female humans might just happen to be aroused by bosoms, a bushy groin with no conspicuous genitalia an hour-glass figure or maybe even pretty dresses or see-thru lingerie.

Science doesn't explain everything. Neither does religion, philosophy and Darwin. Don't pretend that it does explain everything. The earth is but an infinite particle of dust throughout the universe.

There are still mysteries about this world (including the mechanisms of sexual attraction) and perhaps some things are best left unknown to man. No living person really knows for fact what happens to our soul when we die. Hopefully, my soul goes to some place nice, painless, peaceful and beautiful. Perhaps, it will just again occupy some other earthy living body, human or otherwise, someday.

Regardless of one's sexual orientation, just live and let live. Be blessed and thankful that you are even alive.

Jonathan Bailey said:

male = sperm-producer
female = egg-producer

There is no more to it than this.

This is the universal truth about the two sexes throughout the animal kingdom.

Nothing else besides biological gamete type is exclusive to either of the sexes.

Sexual orientation has no bearing on biological sex or gender expression.

There are both macho and sissy men attracted to women.
There are both macho and sissy men attracted to men.

There are both dainty and butch women attracted to men.
There are both dainty and butch women attracted to women.

There are both macho and sissy men attracted to both sexes.
There are both dainty and butch women attracted to both sexes.

There are both macho and sissy men attracted to neither sex.
There are both dainty and butch women attracted to neither sex.

This notion of playing "boy parts" and "girl parts" in same-sex relationships is nonsense.
The female sea horse penetrates the male and he carries the young. An anus is not a reproductive organ. Again, there is nothing exclusive to either sex except gamete type all throughout nature.

In higher order animal species, females carry two like sex chromosomes while males carry two different sex chromosome types. In lower order species, males carry two like sex chromosomes whole females carry two different sex chromosome types.

There is one known bat species whereas the males produce milk as well as the females.

There is one hyena species where the clitoris looks like a penis and is similarly sized.

Roosters have no penis.

Male elephants have their testicles inside their bodies.

Female marsupials have no womb.

Male lions have gorgeous manes while lionesses are round-headed.

Peacocks are pretty while peahens are plain.

Cows are as deep-voiced as bulls.

Some male birds have very high-pitched calls.

Male bullfrogs are vocal while females are totally quiet.

Again the sole universal sex definer is the gamete (reproductive body) type.



Once people get passed the ignorance about what the sexes really are then the world will be in harmony with the LGBT community.

Click to expand...

No thanks.

Sex and gender are the same thing.

Men are men and women are women.

Neither can ever become the other.

I don't understand why the T is lumped into LGB, when it has nothing to do with sexual orientation.

Prestor John said:

No thanks.

Sex and gender are the same thing.

Men are men and women are women.

Neither can ever become the other.

Click to expand...

I wonder what term you then use for the culture-dependent categorization into "gender" groups if you don't use gender for that. By gender group I mean social categories which are associated with specific behavior, social roles, dress code etc. and which bear some relation with the sexual characteristics of the members of each group.
Conservative American culture knows 2 such gender groups, Indian culture 3 and some native American cultures for example distinguish 5.

And even by conservative American standards my sex and my gender group are not the same. By chromosomes and genitals I'm a female (not by hormone levels and most secondary/tertiary sexual characteristics, though). But since I look like a male to anyone who doesn't look at my crotch, and since I also behave more like a stereotypical male than like a stereotypical female, most anyone in everyday life would assign me to the male gender group.

I don't understand why the T is lumped into LGB, when it has nothing to do with sexual orientation.

Click to expand...

Pretty sure it's included because transpeople face similar kinds of discrimination as homosexuals etc.
Furthermore, also intersexuals are normally included under the LGBT/queer umbrella, and I would argue that transpeople who undergo surgery or hormone therapy are thereby letting themselves be turned into intersexuals in a way.

Liu said:

I wonder what term you then use for the culture-dependent categorization into "gender" groups if you don't use gender for that. By gender group I mean social categories which are associated with specific behavior, social roles, dress code etc. and which bear some relation with the sexual characteristics of the members of each group.
Conservative American culture knows 2 such gender groups, Indian culture 3 and some native American cultures for example distinguish 5.

Click to expand...

A man wearing a dress is still a man.

A man with pronounced feminine qualities is still a man.

Why don't you mention these "gender groups" by name?

Give me some worthwhile examples.

Liu said:

And even by conservative American standards my sex and my gender group are not the same. By chromosomes and genitals I'm a female (not by hormone levels and most secondary/tertiary sexual characteristics, though). But since I look like a male to anyone who doesn't look at my crotch, and since I also behave more like a stereotypical male than like a stereotypical female, most anyone in everyday life would assign me to the male gender group.

Click to expand...

A woman who does her best to act and look like a man is still a woman.

You're a woman.

Liu said:

Pretty sure it's included because transpeople face similar kinds of discrimination as homosexuals etc.

Click to expand...

Like what?

Liu said:

Furthermore, also intersexuals are normally included under the LGBT/queer umbrella, and I would argue that transpeople who undergo surgery or hormone therapy are thereby letting themselves be turned into intersexuals in a way.

Click to expand...

No.

Prestor John said:

A man wearing a dress is still a man.

A man with pronounced feminine qualities is still a man.

Why don't you mention these "gender groups" by name?

Give me some worthwhile examples.

Click to expand...

I didn't remember the names from the top of my head.

I did a quick search and did not find 5 different terms being used in any gender system (but a lot of claims about them existing). The Indian third gender I had in mind are the hijras and in native American cultures the additional genders besides male and female are nowadays generally called Two-Spirits, but different tribes have different words. Here is an overview: Gender system - Wikipedia

A woman who does her best to act and look like a man is still a woman.

You're a woman.

Click to expand...

Sure, chromosomically I'm a female, but for most everyday practical purposes I'm a male, in the remaining cases I'm a transman.

Like what?

Click to expand...

I luckily live in a place where discrimination of either is fairly rare, so I can't speak of personal experience. But generally speaking, if a society doesn't allow people to engage in homosexual activities, it typically also doesn't allow people to determine themselves which gender role they want to belong to.

No.

Click to expand...

Why not? My body is clearly somewhere between the sexes, comparable (if opposite) to how it's between the sexes for someone with XY-chromosomes whose body lacks testosterone-receptors, one of the forms of intersexuality. Sure in my situation it's not inborn - but the damage is done, so to speak, my body can't be turned back into that of a full female anymore.