Susan's Place Transgender Resources

nature? god? or? ;)

The Irreligious Right? ... >:D

Seriously, my guess would be that's about as inborn as homosexuality or any other sexual proclivity, Tasha. It's just a matter, I think, of realizing that "natural" covers a lot more ground than many of us think it may.

Nichole

I think..
BANANAS!

Virus maybe.  Someone will try to cure that to.

Something that seems to me from all that I've read about it, most people as young kids seem to have the opinion that the gender opposite their identity is "icky" or "dumb" and that for straight people that goes away in adolescence and they become attracted to the opposite gender, whereas gay/lesbian people don't have that sudden shift in perception. So it may even be that the "default" is to be homosexual but some mechanism changes that in the majority of folks. But of course then too there's bisexuals and asexuals so it's probably not that simple.

Quote from: umop ap!sdn on July 05, 2008, 08:08:16 PM
Something that seems to me from all that I've read about it, most people as young kids seem to have the opinion that the gender opposite their identity is "icky" or "dumb" and that for straight people that goes away in adolescence and they become attracted to the opposite gender, whereas gay/lesbian people don't have that sudden shift in perception. So it may even be that the "default" is to be homosexual but some mechanism changes that in the majority of folks. But of course then too there's bisexuals and asexuals so it's probably not that simple.

It may not be that simple, but WOW!! What a wonderful insight!! :)

Nichole

the need to procreate. course one needn't be completely hetero to do so. i imagine in a completely homosexual world, gays and lesbians would procreate for survival of the species. there'd probably be contracts and all that. sort of like amazon tribes agreeing to breed with males of neighboring tribes.

The need for procreation so the current system of white supremacist kyriarchy can survive. :P

Nature.

I think its in our instincts to want to 'survive' and 'procreate' so we may live on through generations. We want our species to last, so from that standpoint, I feel it is a nature thing. And by nature, I believe that when a population gets too high, homosexual activity increases to cause a form of balance and population control. That doesn't really cover bisexual preferences or whatever there is out there though...

You might also argue that the only reason why homosexual population goes up as theres more of a population density is because more people = you see more of the uncommon things as well due to so many people.

So, I don't know a heck of a lot about the science and biology standpoint surrounding those theories, but its an idea none the less.

Either way, I'm going to go with nature.

Quote from: Natasha on July 05, 2008, 07:12:16 PM
nature? god? or? ;)

Statistical analysis of observable behaviour.

Wing Walker

Quote from: Nichole on July 05, 2008, 08:10:36 PMIt may not be that simple, but WOW!! What a wonderful insight!! :)

Really? Why thank you. :)

Quote from: Monty on July 06, 2008, 02:22:13 AMAnd by nature, I believe that when a population gets too high, homosexual activity increases to cause a form of balance and population control. That doesn't really cover bisexual preferences or whatever there is out there though...

In that case bisexuality might just be a consequence of the variation that exists.

Well, if dear old Sigmund was to be believed, we're all, by default, bisexual ... ;)

I suppose if that IS the case, it's psychology and social conditioning as much as anything else that swings us to one of the two extremes.  ::)

~Simone.

Free love?  ;D
OMG, Shades of Woodstock.  8)

Now where is my tie dyed halter top?  ???

Janet

Quotewhat causes heterosexuality?

Tradition, mostly.

Quote from: redfish the artiste on July 06, 2008, 10:45:11 AMChimpanzees are Republicans (or, in certain President's cases, some Republicans are chimpanzees).

Bwahahaha!!! :D

Quote from: umop ap!sdn on July 05, 2008, 08:08:16 PM
Something that seems to me from all that I've read about it, most people as young kids seem to have the opinion that the gender opposite their identity is "icky" or "dumb" and that for straight people that goes away in adolescence and they become attracted to the opposite gender, whereas gay/lesbian people don't have that sudden shift in perception. So it may even be that the "default" is to be homosexual but some mechanism changes that in the majority of folks. But of course then too there's bisexuals and asexuals so it's probably not that simple.

This is the Freudian idea of sexual development which has been pretty well discredited, especially since it makes homosexuality a form of arrested development.

A tremendous lack of imagination?

Interesting thing about humans.  As affluence increases the fertility rates decrease (I heard this a couple decades ago when studying Malthus in college).  Hence, we see European firtility rates in some affluent countries below replacement levels.  Assuming libido stays the same, people might prefer sex partners of the same gender since it avoids reproduction all together.

Or perhaps they just don't want the work and time that children inevitably bring? Fooling around being more in the way of "fun" than "duty?" :)

Quote from: Nichole on July 07, 2008, 10:55:39 AM
Or perhaps they just don't want the work and time that children inevitably bring? Fooling around being more in the way of "fun" than "duty?" :)

In the not too distant past, children were an investment, a way to create laborers.  While the first 5 years have a negative ROI, around 6 or 7 they can begin doing some tasks and cover a portion of their fixed cost.  By 10 or a 11 there is a positive ROI and 6 or 8 years of productive labor. 

This works very well in a rural economy.  In an urban economy that has those stifling child labor laws, children become a luxury good.  You sink thousands into them and you'll probably never see a nickel in return.

Quote from: Claire de Lune on July 07, 2008, 11:20:13 AM

Quote from: Nichole on July 07, 2008, 10:55:39 AM
Or perhaps they just don't want the work and time that children inevitably bring? Fooling around being more in the way of "fun" than "duty?" :)

In the not too distant past, children were an investment, a way to create laborers.  While the first 5 years have a negative ROI, around 6 or 7 they can begin doing some tasks and cover a portion of their fixed cost.  By 10 or a 11 there is a positive ROI and 6 or 8 years of productive labor. 

This works very well in a rural economy.  In an urban economy that has those stifling child labor laws, children become a luxury good.  You sink thousands into them and you'll probably never see a nickel in return.

Claire, honey, I do so agree with your "rational" analysis of this, but as a mom I also know my children have returned my "investment" a thousand-fold in the ways of love, learning, understanding and pride than any monetary return would have ever been worth to me.

"Rationality," "utility" and "costs/benefits" be damned. The joy of watching others grow and make their way into the world may be one of Maslow's "higher order" benefits; but it's the one that speaks to my heart and soul.

Nichole

I completely agree!  I'm father to a daughter and I wouldn't have missed that experience for anything.  She taught me at least as much as I taught her and she continues to do so.  The analysis from a certain utilitarian perspective that finds dollars and cents the only measure of value.  Unfortunately it's one that is shared by far too many people in positions of power.

Quote from: Natasha on July 05, 2008, 07:12:16 PM
nature? god? or? ;)

Hormone wash. Poor dears! ::) And there's no cure  >:D

Z

Quote from: Zythyra on July 18, 2008, 01:29:55 PM

Quote from: Natasha on July 05, 2008, 07:12:16 PM
nature? god? or? ;)

Hormone wash. Poor dears! ::) And there's no cure  >:D

Z

I thought it was because they had been recruited by older heterosexual perverts, especially the religious ones.  Heterosexuality is a choice, you know, even if it is an abomination.

Heterosexuality is the "default." Homosexuality, bisexuality, pansexuality etc. are just the other options. And there's nothing wrong with being "another" rather than the "default."

Eh, I don't know about that...  I dunno if there really is a legitimate "default" and certainly plenty of heterosexuals are only more or less heterosexual than others... I mean, I identify that way, but truth be told I'm not strictly hetero, just mostly.

I feel it is simply confirmation bias and reassuring one's self to claim that homosexuality came first. It really isn't fact. Asexuality (as in, spawning, dividing, etc) came first. Homosexuality and heterosexuality have been around since there were sexes, but only one of the two promotes the survival of the species. If I try to be as objective as possible (and yes, I am flamingly gay, with a hint of bisexuality) I believe that homosexuality is a bit of a "defect" to the species. Does that mean all gay people should die or stop being gay? No. But is homosexuality useful to the species' survival? No.

Quote from: Lisbeth on July 18, 2008, 07:22:28 PM
I thought it was because they had been recruited by older heterosexual perverts, especially the religious ones.  Heterosexuality is a choice, you know, even if it is an abomination.

How could I have forgotten, what with all those creepy hets out there trying to recruit...  >:D

Seriously, I believe that humans are inherently bisexual, and due to negative societal conditioning, most people are too terrified to admit or face it.

Z

The order in which the words were scribed is not congruent with when the actual process began or why.

Don't get me wrong. I like queers just fine. I just don't like queers to use irrational arguments to justify how they feel.

I wouldn't buy that. Homosexuality existed. It's like saying rocks didn't exist until we made a word for it. The fact is, people of the same sex hand sex and people of the opposite sex had sex. This has nothing to do with "stating" it or making it a "diagnosis." The language doesn't matter; that's mere semantics.

Don't try to confuse me with more words, please. It's just a waste of time.

Homosexuality and heterosexuality have been around since multiple sexes have. The second a species evolved into a species that had sexes rather than asexual production was the age of homosexual and heterosexual interaction. This all occurred long before there was man and long before there was language.

Homosexuality and heterosexuality are far more simple than you give them credit for. Homosexuality is the interaction of two sexes of the same sex sexually and heterosexuality is the interaction of two sexes of the opposite sex sexually. This implying that the state of homosexuality and heterosexuality does not only apply to human beings who have a more complicated concept of what sexuality is. A male monkey who is attracted to other male monkeys is considered homosexual, despite his lack of "emotional" and "cognitive" connection to his sexuality. Thus, that shilly-shallying about the "philosophical ways" of sexuality is quite irrelevant. In the most raw, broad, and condensed uses of the term, it's a purely biological term that means nothing more than what the word itself tells us.

History of the world and biology does not end with the human race.

Homosexuality was around long before the 18th century. Yes, that EXACT word had not yet been characterized, but the concept was known. In Rome, bisexuality and homosexuality were accepted, later embraced, and further encouraged near Rome's fall. Yes, they don't talk about this in school much (it isn't PC) but homosexuality became quite the norm just before Rome had fallen. It was normal to be gay, bisexual, straight, whatever. Sure, they didn't have words for it, but there were stories about it, Gods that represented it, and drawings on pottery and ->-bleeped-<- that showed homosexual relations even as far back as that. In ancient India there is evidence of gender diversity in Gods that could change their sexes and other examples showing diversity in sexuality and gender.

Your argument only includes the history of the European and the history of the word. Words are not as important as raw contents existing. Again, rocks were around before words were, and so were homosexuals and heterosexuals.

Quote from: redfish on July 19, 2008, 05:57:46 PM
Ergo, heterosexuality was caused by homosexuality.

No, it was when the Dark Crystal was shattered and the species was divided into Heterosexies and Gayflings.  When the prophecy is fulfilled and the Crystal is healed, everyone will be Bisexy again.

 :icon_surprised:

"Personally, I think the Jabberwocky is completely responsible for the entire manifestation of words and concrete reality," said Nichole.

"Off with her head," said the Red Queen (in this case named, appropriately enough, Redfish) to the Guardsman, Elwood, as the stunned Lisbeth looked on, groking on rocks. 

G... G... Guardsman?

I like the idea of that one, sister.  ;D

Its all in how the genes work.

You know, Lee's, Levis...  :D

Quote from: redfish on July 19, 2008, 10:42:48 PM

QuoteHomosexuality and heterosexuality have been around since multiple sexes have. The second a species evolved into a species that had sexes rather than asexual production was the age of homosexual and heterosexual interaction. This all occurred long before there was man and long before there was language.

Same-sex sexual interaction existed, but it was not attributed to heterosexual or homosexual hegemonies, categories, or associated with specific types of persons. Sex was just sex, and had yet to be divided into little boxes.

I'm not talking about categories or words. If that's what you're talking about, then I'd agree with you. But homosexuals have always been around, as have heterosexuals. The concept existed before the word did.

Quote from: redfish on July 19, 2008, 10:42:48 PM

QuoteA male monkey who is attracted to other male monkeys is considered homosexual, despite his lack of "emotional" and "cognitive" connection to his sexuality. Thus, that shilly-shallying about the "philosophical ways" of sexuality is quite irrelevant. In the most raw, broad, and condensed uses of the term, it's a purely biological term that means nothing more than what the word itself tells us.

Alright, so we have heterosexuality and homosexuality. Consequently, we have heterosexual and homosexual acts and heterosexual and homosexual people.

I'm also aware that some people like to have sex frequently and others like to have sex less frequently. I know! Let's call the ones who like to have sex more frequently Oftensexuals and the ones who like to have sex less frequently Seldomsexuals! In studying the Oftensexual and Seldomsexual person, we might find traits that they share - let's call these Oftensexual or Seldomsexual traits! Also, sex performed frequently is now called Oftensexual sex and sex performed less frequently is called Seldomsexual. There must be something that causes people to be this way...let's search for the Seldomsexual gene!

I never claimed that there was a gay gene. But I'm sure there is a known biological cause for a person's amount of sex drive.

Quote from: redfish on July 19, 2008, 10:42:48 PMIsn't homosexuality and heterosexuality kind of, well, arbitrary? Why not just say people have sex with the same sex or a different sex and just call it a day without placing all these complicated labels over the surface? Why not just say a male chimpanzee that had sex with another male chimpanzee just had...sex with another male chimpanzee instead of saying the chimpanzee was homosexual or that it engaged in a homosexual act?

Saying homosexual is easier than saying "a person who prefers same-sex interaction." Some labeling in life is necessary for easy communication. I have no problem with being called a homosexual.

Quote from: redfish on July 19, 2008, 10:42:48 PM

QuoteHomosexuality was around long before the 18th century. Yes, that EXACT word had not yet been characterized, but the concept was known. In Rome, bisexuality and homosexuality were accepted, later embraced, and further encouraged near Rome's fall. Yes, they don't talk about this in school much (it isn't PC) but homosexuality became quite the norm just before Rome had fallen. It was normal to be gay, bisexual, straight, whatever. Sure, they didn't have words for it, but there were stories about it, Gods that represented it, and drawings on pottery and ->-bleeped-<- that showed homosexual relations even as far back as that. In ancient India there is evidence of gender diversity in Gods that could change their sexes and other examples showing diversity in sexuality and gender.

I dunno, I think that they weren't really homosexual or bisexual or whatever - it was probably more about action than anything else. People were embraced to have sex with whomever, but not in the form of bisexuality or homosexuality or heterosexuality. Pretty much, sex (the verb and act) got replaced by sexuality (the noun and adjective).

How would you know that?

The word change has got nothing to do with it. Sex, the act, is dictated by sexuality, the preference. The two have been around as long as multiple sexes have been around.

Quote from: redfish on July 19, 2008, 10:42:48 PMPerhaps homosexuality or heterosexuality or bisexuality aren't synoymous with the sex acts themselves. I think each of these labels are just too loaded to accurately describe sex, because as soon as you refer to a "heterosexual act," it also brings upon associations with the heterosexual person and heterosexuality itself. Basically, if we are to believe Foucault, sexuality has been taking over sex.

I would never even use the words, "heterosexual act." I call sexual acts sexual acts, bada bing. There isn't really a "specific" sexual act I can think of besides guys potentially beating their penises against each other. Other than that, everyone's got an anus.

Quote from: redfish on July 19, 2008, 10:42:48 PM

Quote from: Nichole on July 19, 2008, 07:37:13 PM
"Personally, I think the Jabberwocky is completely responsible for the entire manifestation of words and concrete reality," said Nichole.

"Off with her head," said the Red Queen (in this case named, appropriately enough, Redfish) to the Guardsman, Elwood, as the stunned Lisbeth looked on, groking on rocks. 

I thought I was the walrus. Or, given the "quality" of what I've been saying, possibly a way-too-stoned caterpillar.

"I am the egg-man.  I am the walrus.  Coo coo ca'choo."

Actually, the whole hetero/homo concept is an outgrowth of the modern strict logicality of the 20th century.  It's impossible to say that the one causes the other without also saying the reverse.  Homosexuality causes heterosexuality causes homosexuality, in an infinite loop.

I don't know what causes heterosexuality, however, I do know it's a disease that MUST be cured. I'm going to start a camp where hets can come and learn how to rid themselves of their filthy ways. I'll only charge $50,000 per 3 months.

I wish we were Bonobos too.  Except I'd hate to be in a bar room of drunken Bonobos. I'm too passive to survive that.

Quote from: Rebis on July 20, 2008, 11:30:08 AM
I don't know what causes heterosexuality, however, I do know it's a disease that MUST be cured. I'm going to start a camp where hets can come and learn how to rid themselves of their filthy ways. I'll only charge $50,000 per 3 months.

I wish we were Bonobos too.  Except I'd hate to be in a bar room of drunken Bonobos. I'm too passive to survive that.

SCHWHAT?! Are you saying that if I want to bang a girl that I'm diseased?  :'( Or are bis okay?

Everybody is diseased.

That is why I have decided to cleanse the Earth.  I'm going to use a citrus based cleansing agent so I don't hurt anyone with bad chemicals.

I'd go with water but that one's been done to death, the fire next time.

I remember one time, a long time ago, God created the Earth.  I was like, "that's great. It's perfect. Now, let's mess it up." And then God created humans.

Follow me. I am your bliss.



Rebis

I did think society had alot to do with it till i saw a documentry saying there is actually a gay gene.
So it probably is the same thing.
Takes a while and a few hits and misses to be sure.

Quote from: mr_marc on July 30, 2008, 01:38:44 PM
I did think society had alot to do with it till i saw a documentry saying there is actually a gay gene.
So it probably is the same thing.
Takes a while and a few hits and misses to be sure.

isn't that a kind of sloppy way to go about doing it?  ;)

Leave it to Rebis to bring some sanity to the end of this thread. This is the end, isn't it? And no, don't go rhyming on "end," please, Rebis!

N~

Okay.

There can't be much of anything to say about this.  Basically, no one knows what causes heterosexuality.  We just know that it's a terrible disorder and our doctors need to find a way to prevent it.

Marriage tends to cure it in a lot of people, we're going to try that with gay people and see if it works in reverse.

Quote from: mr_marc on July 30, 2008, 01:38:44 PM
I did think society had alot to do with it till i saw a documentry saying there is actually a gay gene.
So it probably is the same thing.
Takes a while and a few hits and misses to be sure.

So what you're really saying is that heterosexuality is caused by a genetic deficiency.  The gay gene is missing or broken.  Those poor straight people!

Quote from: Nichole on July 30, 2008, 02:45:09 PMThis is the end, isn't it?

This is the thread that doesn't end
Yes it goes on and on my friend

:: ducks & runs ::

Quote from: Rebis on July 30, 2008, 02:03:51 PM

Quote from: mr_marc on July 30, 2008, 01:38:44 PM
I did think society had alot to do with it till i saw a documentry saying there is actually a gay gene.
So it probably is the same thing.
Takes a while and a few hits and misses to be sure.

isn't that a kind of sloppy way to go about doing it?  ;)

Nah, how're you gonna find out otherwise?
As i've always said; dont knock it till you've tried it 8)

@Ellie's Miss Lisbeff

Nah xD
I think, going by that documentry. It's all built in before your born=]

I don't know Katia...what causes some people to go bananas for instance, eh?  The whole thing is a total mystery to me! *sighs*   ::)

tink :icon_chick:

40 % genes, 10 % family, 50 % environment.

Quote from: lisagurl on August 19, 2008, 02:23:03 PM
40 % genes, 10 % family, 50 % environment.

70% alcohol.

Quote from: Nichole on July 30, 2008, 02:45:09 PM
Leave it to Rebis to bring some sanity to the end of this thread. This is the end, isn't it? And no, don't go rhyming on "end," please, Rebis!

N~

<sung in nasal early period Dylan voice>

Well my friend
You thought it was the end
but I see it coming round the bend
this thread, yet again
I don't belieeeeeve... it will everrrr... ennnnnnd  >:D

Z

Quote from: Rebis on August 20, 2008, 11:31:24 AM

Quote from: lisagurl on August 19, 2008, 02:23:03 PM
40 % genes, 10 % family, 50 % environment.

70% alcohol.

170% fun

I don't think family has anything to do with who you like to shag, unless that is your family that is :P