Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Nim

Regulars
  • Posts

    17
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Nim

  1. I did some searching on the web about it. And I found out that you ARE TOTOALLY WRONG HAHAHAHA. Just kidding. Actually I found this from one source "further research that compares the size of the corpus callosum size in men and women is needed" and this "the hypothalamus is one area of the brain with well-documented differences between men and women". I found a bunch more sources talking about the confusing research done on the corpus callosum and the other commissures between the hemispheres. Apparently different methods of measuring yield different results, such as cutting open a cadaver and looking at it or using MRI. I am still reading a lot about it, the beginning of the research seems to start before 1910. Man... if I keep on wasting my time reading about every topic that gets my attention Im never going to get out of my networking class
  2. I can see what these differences means, it means that humans (male or female) that are attracted to males tend to have a heterosexual female brain. Which means that male homosexuals aren't typical males in the physical sense. And then there is the research done on the twin females that shows a pattern that would only arise if homosexuality had it roots in genes. I don't see why anymore information needs to be gathered to see the implications of the results. So yes, it is evidence for genetics. I hear a lot of people talking about a "gay gene", and that is definitely not something that I think exists, if that is what you mean. I believe that there are male and female genes and that there are many physical attributes that make males and females different from each other both inside and out which can sometimes get mixed up in one person. A large corpus callosum for instance is an attribute of a female, along with ovaries, a clit and menstration.
  3. I don't know what your talking about. Let's take this tid bit for an example "A study done on 34 homosexual men, 75 heterosexual men, and 84 heterosexual women. Showed that the anterior commissures (a communication link between two brain hemispheres) of the homosexual men were 34% larger than those of heterosexual men and 8% larger than those of women." What exactly else do you need to know about it to see the differences between male homosexuals, males heterosexuals and female heterosexuals? I told you where I got it from, if your suspicious that they're lieing or that the research was done wrong and want to look into it more then go ahead. I don't expect you to take it in, I personally thought it was really interesting and thought that some other people would too. I don't beleive in the concept of free will, I believe in having a will of course but I don't see it as either being free or unfree. The way I see it, we make choices based on our physical nature, just like any other animal. If your brain changes then you mind changes. Testosterone makes human females and cows more masculine. Testosterone causes visible and neurological changes in many different species. If you don't see it that way then I am not going to try and convince you. If anyone is interested in the information I provided or want to look into it more then fine, if they think its lies or failed research, then that's fine too, I just wanted to add something scientific to this thread since I hadn't come across any after reading the whole thing. What claims? The author of the brain book thinks the wiring between males and females are different in all species. So talking about other species doesn't invalidate his claims. And I am not sure what free will has to do with the fact that he believes the "wiring" is different between males and females. And I don't know about the opinion of the scientists who did the cow research, what I quoted was all that I saw from them. My post was aimed more at just providing some information rather than my opinion or anyone elses. Hehe. This isn't a gays rights book or anything. It's just a Gigantic book about the brain. It only mentions homosexuality in chapter 12.
  4. Another interesting instance of homosexuality in nature: "A similar phenomenon occurs in cases where a cow brings two fraternal twins, one male and one female, to term. Because (unlike humans) such twins share hormones via their placental blood interface with the mother cow, male hormones produced in the body of the fetal bull find their way into the body of the fetal cow and masculinize her brain. The result is a freemartin (unconventional heiffer), a cow that will eventually try to mount other cows the way that a bull would." While it's easy for people to see that sometimes male and female body parts get mixed up (herms, merms, and ferms), it takes some research to see how the things inside of males and females can get mixed up. Currently I've been reading about how some males have an extra X (female) chromosome. It's known as "Klinefelter's syndrome" if anyone is interested.
  5. The information was gathered from "The Owner's Manual For The Brain", in section 12 "Sex and Gender: The Wiring Is Different". SEXUALITY A section of the hypothalamus called the BSTc is 50% larger among MALES than among FEMALES regardless of whether they are homosexual or heterosexual. But among transsexual men (not surgically transexual but men who feel that they are really women trapped in the body of a man), the BSTc is not only smaller on the average than other men's; it is also smaller than women's. Homosexuality runs in families, appear randomly in birth order, and exhibit early childhood gender noncomformity. The third interstitial nucleus of the anterior hypothalamus is of equal size in women and homosexual men but is twice as large in heterosexual men. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- STUDY SUBJECTS SEXUALITY *71 sets of identical twin females. 48% of the lesbians had a lesbian sister. *37 sets of fraternal twin females. 16% of the lesbians had a lesbian sister. *35 sets of adoptive sisters. 6% of the lesbians had a lesbian sister. *182 heterosexual men 16% showed more ridges on the left hand than the right. *66 homosexual men 30% showed more ridges on the left hand than the right.[/code] A study done on 34 homosexual men, 75 heterosexual men, and 84 heterosexual women. Showed that the anterior commissures (a communication link between two brain hemispheres) of the homosexual men were 34% larger than those of heterosexual men and 8% larger than those of women. note: twice as many homosexuals showed more ridges on the left than heterosexuals. these print patterns are completely formed within four months of conception. women and gay men have a higher incidence of higher left-hand ridge counts. While the womens were 13% larger than the straight men. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Gays and lesbians have a higher incidence of left-handedness. Homosexual men have larger connections between the two hemispheres. Both men and women with higher left-handed ridge counts excel at typically feminine tasks such as those involving nurture and verbal skills. Many gay brothers share a strip of DNA passed down from their mothers. Inner ears of lesbians respond to sounds in a manner that resembles a male's response more than a female's. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The male fruit fly (drosophila) possesses a powerful high-level gene that governs his sexual behavior. One mutation of the gene leads to indiscriminate, or bisexual, behavior; another mutation removes the desire to mate; and yet another mutation removes the ability to perform the "courtship buzz." Yet fruit flies with all three mutations are perfectly healthy otherwise.
  6. Hmm... Hume kinda sounds interesting. Especially that whole finger scratching thing.
  7. I got that from Hume? Lol, I don't even know who that is. And my statement was rather simplistic, a lot of people have probably said that before.
  8. The movie is pretty much pure fantasy that tries to pass itself off as some kind of it could happen scenerio, like Armageddon. But more unrealistic in my opinion.
  9. I eat because I desire to live? Ok nevermind.
  10. There's nothing that I don't understand. You just haven't shown any reason to believe what you are saying other than you said so. For example, you say we don't have a choice to have sexual desires or not, but that we have a choice what we sexually desire. You just draw up conclusions such as this with no premises. You also say that what I am saying is wrong, but don't say why it is wrong. You call it "ballyhoo" but don't give any reasons why it is. You also ignore certain points that are made. You still haven't addressed what people who have mixed masculine and feminine attributes should do. You seem too intent on believing in what you want to believe to even consider thinking about it in another way. I think you're missing the point that desires aren't what we choose, but what causes us to choose. I choose to eat breakfeast, because I have hunger, the desire to eat. I don't choose to have the desire to eat, I don't choose to have hunger. Hunger is what makes me choose to get up and go get something out of the fridge. Male heterosexuals choose to be with females because they have a desire for them. It's no secret that male homosexuals have feminine attributes. It seems like a coincidence that all the males with larger corpus callosums for instance, decided to be attracted to males and also decided to not be attracted to females when they were young.
  11. So you are saying that my desire for chocolate milk is a subconscious decision that I make? While taking a drink of it is a conscious decision? Are you saying that all desires are subconscious decisions that we make, such as eating fruit and meat instead of grass like a cow? You say that being attracted to the opposite sex is more rational? Well, what about being attracted to the opposite gender? And not everyone is one or the other sex, or one or the other gender. Sometimes they are mixed, so what is rational for them? And how is a heterosexual lifestyle a more rational, reality-oriented, and rewarding lifestyle? People are hetersexual because males are designed to like females and vise verse because that is how we spread and mix our genes, not because it's rational or reality-oriented. Being rational is a way of thinking, not a way of feeling. It's not as if I don't like to eat grass because I feel that it's not rational or reality-oriented. And I don't think other animals such as dogs are attracted to the scent of a female instead of a male because it's more rational either, they just are. Desires are present in rather stupid lifeforms that don't know what it is to be rational, but their desires still make sense as far as their survival is concerned. You won't see a squirrel happily chewing on a rock or anything. Well probably not anyways, heh.
  12. You say that since they are "not hopelessly susceptible to their desires" that they "have the choice to not only act or not act upon those desires, but also to create, destroy, and alter the desires themslelves". How exactly did you come to that conclusion? Why can they change what they desire just because they have a choice to not indulge those desires? Not doing something you want to do, and completely destroying your desire to want to do something, are two completely different thing. Just because you can choose to not break into a girls house and rape her doesn't mean you can also choose not to want to in the first place. Actions taken and desires felt are very different. I am not hopelessly susceptible to the desire for chocolate milk, I can choose to drink or not drink it. But how does that suggest that I can also create, destroy, and alter my desires for chocolate milk? Btw: Can you really create a desire for men if you choose? Are you being completely serious about that?
  13. Hey now, speak for yourself. You may be able to choose to like guys, but I sure can't. No more than I can choose to like green eggs and ham.
  14. My third post is just my view on homosexuality, a reply to the OP. It isn't directed at anything you said. I didn't realize that your analogy was trying to prove that we can choose who we are attracted too. I thought you were trying to say that if one thinks its ok for someone to be an active homosexual because they have no choice but to be attracted to men, then it is ok for someone to be an active pedophile if they have no choice but to be attracted to children. An analogy, that people have made before. I don't believe though, that the premise that sexual desires are uncontrollable leads to the conclusion that we should let rapists out of jail. Fire doesn't have a choice either, but that won't stop firefighters from putting them out. We don't hurt the fire by putting it out though. While putting a rapist in jail will cause him anguish for acting on his uncontrollable sexual desires. But letting him out with cause some women anguish. Even if fire did feel pain, you wouldn't let it spread and cause other people pain just because it's in its nature to spread. You said "If in fact, one's sexual orientation was beyond his control, then the specific types sexual desire that one fulfills by raping someone, molesting a kid, or looking at nude kids would be an integral part of their identity. If that's the case, then they should definitely not be punished for acting within their nature." Just because its in their nature to want something, doesn't mean they can rightfully have it. Plus, putting people in prison isn't just for punishment, it's also for prevention and sometimes for help. You can also turn this around and say we should punish rapists because we have the natural desire to punish rapists and we're just acting on our nature.
  15. You're probably getting sick of seeing my posts. Especially since this is my first time here. But those other two didn't count because I wasn't replying to the OP What is a man? What makes a man, gender or sex, his brain or his dick? A human being can have a masculine gender, but a feminine sex or vise versa. A human being can also have an ovary and a testicle. There are male heterosexuals, females heterosexuals, hermaphrodites, male pseudohermaphrodites, female pseudohermaphrodites, male bisexuals, female bisexuals, male homosexuals, female homosexuals, male transsexuals, and female transsexuals. Sometimes the brain is pink and the body is blue. Sometimes the body has some pink (ovary) and some blue (testicle). Being a male and female isn't black and white. Not everyone posses every feature of a male or female, but a mix of both instead. Sometimes the mix is on the body and sometimes the mix is in the brain, and sometimes the mix is in both. I bet if our brains were color coded, people would pay more attention to it. If you found out that your girlfriend had a blue brain, you would probably think she was a homosexual. But both our brains look pretty much the same to the naked eye. But they are different, the corpus callosum (connection between the two hemispheres) in female brains are larger than male brains and even larger in the brains of male homosexuals. Transsexuals also have a different brain than homosexuals. A section of the hypothalamus called the BSTc is 50% larger among males than among females regardless of whether they are homosexual or heterosexual. But among transsexual men, the BSTc is not only smaller on the average than other men's; it is also smaller than women's. If it's not right for someone to have sex with the same sex, then why should it be right for someone to have sex with the same gender? Should a girl be allowed to have sex with a male hair-stylist who is attracted to men just like her? If its not ok for people whose body looks the same to have sex with each other. Then should it not be ok for people whose brains look the same to have sex with each other? And what on earth is moral for a hermaphrodite to do? They have to choose wether to be a male or female. But they will never be one or the other, so should they just miss out on the family life and spend their life alone? Just so you know, I got the research on sexuality from "The Owner's Manual for the Brain" book. And it has more if you're interested. And just to clear something up. A transsexual is someone who feels like they are a different sex, not necessarily someone who has gotten a sex change. Not all homosexual men for instance, feel like they are actually a women and not all of them want to be a women. Transexual men or more feminine than homosexual men.
  16. There is a difference between a homosexual acting on his homosexaul desires and a pedophile acting on their pedophile desires. I think most people will agree that it is immoral to have sex with children, but not immoral to have sex with an adult man or women. So I'll base my arguememt on those morals. Having sex with children is always wrong. It is wrong if you are a male or a female. And it is wrong if you are an adult or even a child yourself. But having sex with an adult man or women is not wrong. But some believe it is wrong if you are a man with a man or a women with a women. You are saying that it's ok to have sex with a man or women as long as you are a different sex. You are saying that it's ok to have a sexual desire for a man or a women as long as you are a different sex. But it's never ok to have sex with a child, no matter what the circumstances. And so I don't believe that your analogy is a good one.
  17. Grantsinmypants, are you saying that it's not immoral to be a homosexual, but that if you are homosexual, then it is immoral to act on your homosexual desires? I think you missed the point of Tom Rexton's analogy. Eating and having sex does not inolve the coercion of someone else. But forcing someone to give you food or sex does of course. I don't believe this analogy applies to you though, unless you were saying what Rexton thought you were saying. I think the confusion comes from the word homosexual itself. I think there needs to be a distinction made between being attracted to the same sex and having sex with the same sex. I got these two definitions from the Microsoft Encarta Dictionary. Homosexual: somebody who is sexually attracted to members of his or her own sex. Pedophile: an adult who has sexual desire for children or who has committed the crime of sex with a child. There is a difference between wanting someones food and stealing someones food. There is a difference between wanting to hurt someone and actually hurting someone. There is a difference between being attracted to children and actively having sex with children. And there is a difference between being attracted to the same sex and having sex with the same sex. So the question is this. Is it immoral to be attracted to children? Is it immoral to be attracted to the same sex? Is it immoral to want to hurt someone? Or is it only immoral to have sex with children, have sex with the same sex, and hurt people? I think morals are about what is the right and wrong things to do. Not what is the right or wrong things to feel. I think one can feel wrong things, but be moral as long as they do the right things. Well not just do the right things, but do the right things because they want to do the right things.
×
×
  • Create New...