Phi for All

Is this the same study or a different one? https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24343892/ These studies seem to indicate that the streamlining of connections in the brain reorganizes their functions to make them more efficient. Girls seem to mature faster than boys, probably because they're able to focus a bit better owing to reduced pathways leading to the information they need. It sounds like girls find the highways in their brains while boys are still driving around on back roads.

I think you conflate gender identity with sexual orientation quite a bit. You keep making references to waiting until children are adults, like it's akin to sexual consent. Your gender identity is defined as your innermost concept of self as male/female/blend/neither. Children can figure that part out better if they aren't corralled into what their parents want.

You got what you wanted to get.

Iirc, girls optimize connections in the brain a bit faster than boys, leading to earlier development in several areas.

It's sloppy journalism. A seal wouldn't make any noise in space. I think they're referring to the reverberation in their underwater recordings. Some people associate reverberating noises with something similar done in early sci-fi movies. Dr Who probably didn't help, since the opening theme to the show features a reverberating electronic tone while the Tardis flies through space. Hard to tell until you read them, and then it's too late. Think of it like eating a stew made with some things that are good for you, and some that aren't. Only digest the good bits, and spit the rest in the trash.

We see a lot more diverse tendencies in cultures that allow them, so it definitely appears to be learned. Male dominance is also a LOT more toxic and competition oriented than what women do. Men will jeer at a woman who wants to operate heavy machinery (like it requires testicles and muscles to work a backhoe), but have you ever heard of female nurses deriding male nurses? The job market is heavily influenced by the worst of male behavior, mostly because men are encouraged to look at everything as a competition, even when cooperation is more profitable. Except when you don't. Plenty of males take care of young among different species, like penguins, marmosets, foxes, frogs, and seahorses. I personally don't think our brains needed a lot of hardwired traits the way many animals do. I think our capacity for intelligence and learning lets us determine how to best adapt to any given situation, and would be hampered if we had too many rigid ways of thinking. We're not limited to fight or flight; humans can negotiate, bluff, or reason out even better ways to deal with our world.

Something tells me that gender identity is much more basic than that. Should we wait until they're adults to determine if they're right handed or left? Applying a one-size-fits-all solution seems like a big part of the problem.

And perhaps we're seeing a trend away from thinking generalizations about whole ethnic groups are funny. Personally, I think there are better sources of humor than outdated bigotry and persecution, or insulting groups based on the actions of some. And given that it was worded so poorly, the real joke is that anyone thought it was worth defending as humor. Ha ha!

! Moderator Note You need to STOP making this so personal. Have we reached the end of your ability to have a civil conversation? Do you need a vacation?

Maybe this is the real problem. Stop waiting and start studying. Knowledge doesn't drift past you while you're standing still. Get a shovel and dig, put your boots on and climb, and you'll find the progress you can't see when you yourself aren't progressing.

I think we're using different definitions here. If you learned to fear heights because you fell out of a tree, I don't think of that as innate or natural in the way the OP is using "nature". You learned it, so it's nurture.

I don't consider that scenario "natural" though, unless the childhood trauma was based on real danger.

But fear is only natural if it's rational, don't you think? Unless you can point to another animal that has irrational fears about how others of its species seek pleasure. Even if you ignore nature, what's the motivation for so much violence against homosexuals by homophobes? What do YOU think homophobes are getting so angry about, and do you think these reasons are rational enough to warrant the kinds of aggression we see from them?

https://www.npr.org/2023/02/02/1152481564/we-asked-the-new-ai-to-do-some-simple-rocket-science-it-crashed-and-burned

So you agree that homophobia is unique to humans, a learned behavior based on our brainpower, and something that requires indoctrination into a particular set of societal norms. Not natural, but rather nurtured by fear and misunderstanding. Sexual orientation seems to be fairly fundamental to the psyche that picks on those who are different, and they behave with open hostility about it. Being from a different country is probably a core fear as well, based on how foreigners are treated. I wonder if these same feelings are present (though watered down) even in mundane differences. Do homophobes also harbor bad opinions of those who prefer chunky peanut butter to smooth? Do they ridicule those who face the toilet paper the wrong way?

Right, they deny being attracted. Most won't admit being afraid, or most don't fear it, are you trying to have this both ways? That's a different orientation. Actually, tolerance is probably the default or natural attitude. Learning to be tolerant after one has learned to be homophobic isn't the same as starting life with a tolerant outlook. Most kids are actually like that, with notable exceptions about justice and fairness. Children do openly learn homophobia from their parents (even though you've NEVER seen it), and they also learn from peers, media, and other sources. They LEARN it, it's not natural.

The orientation may be hardwired, but I think the behavior surrounding it is mostly learned. Male heterosexuality in particular is a pretty fragile thing, where men learn even one mistake can label you for life. Women's orientation is a bit more forgiving, as if men don't understand lesbians and don't see their homosexuality as a threat.

I don't think it's a "fact" that what you're referring to is innate. We don't start out with many fears, we learn them. We tend to shy away from loud noises, we instinctively duck from things that come at us too fast, and spiders/snakes seem to be hereditary dangers for most. Homophobia certainly doesn't make the list of natural fears for humans. The closest instinctual fear would be predators in general, so why are some hetero males afraid of homosexuals as predators? Predators triggering innate fears usually exhibit obviously dangerous behavior, like growling and baring of teeth. Some people learn to fear predation from people they don't want to have sex with, yet we all have a strong urge to appear desirable and fit to everyone we encounter. Ask a homophobic what they fear about LGBTQ people and it's fairly easy to see they learned every bit of it. Studies show that homophobes are less likely to have had any kind of contact with gays or lesbians, more likely to be religious, less well educated, resided in areas where homophobia was the norm (small towns, rural areas), and tend towards authoritarian views and the personality traits that come with that perspective. Homophobia isn't natural, otherwise we'd see it in nature, right? Name another species with homophobia, please. What are some examples of things humans like innately?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surrogacy#Gestational_surrogacy

No, as if there's no reason for them to be involved emotionally. I was going to ask you the same thing, is this new logic? I think you have a different definition of "closet gay" than I do. I don't consider someone who desperately identifies as straight because they're afraid of being homosexual "in the closet". I call it being "in denial". Someone who is forced to identify as straight out of fear of being oppressed for their homosexuality is hiding in the closet. The first one is homophobic, the second one is afraid of repercussions.

CEngelbrecht has been banned for substituting uncivil comments, fallacious arguments, and soapboxing for scientific discussion.

! Moderator Note If you listened to anyone, it would signal that you can reason. If you didn't soapbox every argument while failing to support them, it would tell us you can discuss a subject meaningfully. We can even handle your attempts to drive home weak points with shocking language, but we won't put up with this kind of uncivil comments. You ran out of intelligent things to say quite some time ago, but now your abuse is personal. Good luck elsewhere.

! Moderator Note Can you give us a quote or even a comment about how you want this document handled as part of the discussion, please? You aren't supposed to simply post links or videos or anything that has to be opened without giving the membership a reason why.

Straight people shouldn't have any feelings one way or the other, so if they do, perhaps they aren't as straight as they thought. If attraction is a spectrum, isn't someone who claims to be 100% straight an extremist?

"I'm not going to explain why I think this way, but it's a given that I'm correct." Um, no thanks. Science discussion forum.