Women

Could you please amplify this statement, then, William:

[indent] I understand something we have done in the past is what has created this genetic/gender confusion. I have no idea of what that may be, but to conclude that it is a "natural phenomenon is I think an erroneous one.[/indent]

You are clearly attempting to make a strong correlation between an act of commission by the H. sapein at large, and what you see as genetic/gender confusion. This matter of genetics and gender, is a matter of almost all animal forms, including H. sapien, regardless of how much you may want to make the human non-animal (which can be done, of course linguistically by simply drawing a line of the definition, but which cannot, I repeat, cannot be done by the careful, detailed observation of nature). Homosexuality, by extension, would seemingly be logically included in your take of 'genetic/gender confusion,' therefore, the entire span of the state of homosexuality (a brain sex orientation) would fall under your term as well.

So . . . by extension of the span of the catagory of states that lie within the perimeters of the actual genetic and gender biological state, we must include almost all animated life forms--especially the vertebrates (and even more so mammals, and most especially the great apes [our dear first cousins evoluntionary wise]) which fact (and I repeat, this is fact) will automatically demand that your statement would be saying that the H. sapien is guilty of an act of commission which has led to that very state of homosexuality (as well as the degrees between that and the mean state).

I will point out directly and concisely here, in addition, that in natural terms of biological build and existence, to refuse to see the H. sapien in light of the evidence of the H. sapien's being in the animal line of evolutionary descent (or ascent, if one so wishes to frame it), is a major and fatal error.


Thanks for that link salima; I'll check it out a bit later, and then see if I can find anything on it in other source material (I do have a little sexology material, and may be able to . . .maybe).

As you will recall, with the John/Joan deal, he had actually been born a genetic and genital male (in other words, the pretty much normal mid-ranged bell curve boy) but (and double checking, I see on error of mine in reporting) the machine used in circumcision (you know, removing the foreskin from the penis) messed up; so it wasn't, actually, doctor error. The poor boy was practically castrated then and there (and that's usually done some hours or days after birth, you see). So..., what to do? After deliberation, the parents opted for the 'make him into a her' plan, and so it was. The femal genital was graphed in (no internal part, though) and hormones were administerd. Later, however, nature took its course, and the real 'he' inside her came out; the rest history.

Yes, salima, that is correctly in line with what is known. It might be hard, actually, to call it 'a mistake in programming,' however, because there is so much gene repeating and deletion in practically each and every one of us, that a perfect genetical duplication in the original zygote is probably almost non-existent. Therefore, what we have in these cases, as one would surely see if they were to closely observe natural forms, is a blending from one exterme, to the other; again a continuum. (and to save my life, I cannot see why this fact (I'll repeat [not for you, salima, however] fact, is so hard to take to heart by so many. . .)

A more recent publication Sex Differences in the Brain--from genes to behavior① which deals with it on a serious level (not for lay people, per se) points out (a bit carefully, it seems? but evidently fair enough) that there are differences in brain sex, that it is a real phenomenon, that can be seen in a range of animal behavior (of course including humans) over range of levels (such as female crickets 'marking' [with a scent] a male that they have once copulated with so as to not do so again, etc.).

However in humans, as the several contributors take care to make clear, these differences are not that big, and the distinction may well be seen in contrasting the extremes--such as a very feminine female sexed brain against a very masculine male sexed brain. Homosexuality, nevertheless, fits right in here . . . this is as much a part of it as fish which can and do change from male to female, of those lizards which kind of reproduce themselves...


① Just as a point of interest, of the 6 editors, we find these names--Jill B. Becker, Karen J. Berkley, Elizabeth Hampson, and Elizabeth A. Young . . . and the list of contributors seems to be split about 50/50, so we would not expect any or much bias to come out. It's a really good book--although continuious journal input is also helpful.

Kj, if it's ok let's clearly define what "a careful examination of nature means?" I have arrived at my conclusions by observing nature closely. Obviously we are looking through different lenses. How are you obserivng it, in lieu of how I am obserivng it. I don't "invade" to observe. How do you do it?:perplexed:

Thanks,
William

By careful investigation, we should include all forms of inquiry and observation from the macro down to the micro, and the overlay of the average aggregate that both give us after screening for methodology, bias, and error.

The macro will include investigation and observation of life forms' habitats and behavior within that habitate and out of that habitat for each form. For the H. sapien firstly (and then other species to the extent that it can be done), it will mean not only anthropological investigation, but also archaeological and historical investigation and observation. It will mean the study and observation of primative social groups, migration patterns of the H. sapien and other Homo species. It will demand study of the social arrangements--as much as can be determined--of the various social groups, evidence of emotional, artistic, and industrial contributions which allow insight into the mentality of these groups and their cultural aspects. And it will entail the compiling of the total of the data from these inquiries and the processing and screening (see above) of it.

Then, the micro will include an investigation and observation of basic biological and genetical processes which signify a life form, and the workings and correlations of and among these, towards understanding bio-molecular synthesis, cellular mechanics, organism development. For the H. sapien firstly (then other species) it will demand tracing lines of DNA/genetic migration (genetics and evolutionary biology), investigating and observing cellular development towards testable observable behavior (genetics, neurobiology, endocrinology, molecular neuroscience, clinical neuroscience, psychology, sexology, etc.). It will mean careful interpretation of data in light of all known variables and possible conditions while combining the aggregate, to reach benchmarks of known facts.

All of the micro knowledge, then must be cross-examined and compared, checked for robust connections and matches of observations from the macro inquiry results, and final theories and understanding reached.

I do it by research and study of as many fields as I can, but especially those which I have mentioned above. I make every effort to keep up with what is happening in all these fields, and the benchmark determiners that are reached. I do by having firstly ( and even now, at all times that I possibly can) taking a neutral position towards any field of inquiry, and investigating all leads; verifying the methodologies involved, source information accuracy, degree of agenda involved (if any), and past history (when available) of those who present. (for example, we can get some checking power [but must be careful, I must emphasize] with Deja Vu ... an on-line site by which we can check for plagiarizing and paper duplication)

By just an educated guess (with your usage of the word 'invade') I take it you don't do any on-hands research yourself--but, neither do I (for the far greatest part). However, do you do research otherwise? Do you make an effort to keep up? I would like to encourage you there, in that respect, William.

Let's do this a little bit at a time. How do you define "micro and macro"?
Please bear with me.
Thanks,
William

I'm more than willing to work with you, William, so no problem there. I would think, nevertheless, that what I had meant by macro was pretty much laid out in the content I had given. In short it will be the 'big picture,' from the perspective of looking external to the organisms of life in consideration (on down the road after overlaying with micro [internal to organisms]) of involvement of the micro. I think this is probably a good way to put it . . .

Thank you Kj. Now internal means just what it says. it is inside and that is where it should stay. Call the body SCUBA; Self Contained Undisturbed Breathing Apparatus. When we invade it, we distrube it and any results we gather from that invasion is, to say the least, erroneous. It is not same. Such as Schrodinger's Cat. The more we disturb nature, the more we interfere with it function, the body incuded. I understand your desire to explore as an alruistic one, I really do. But you must understand what i am saying. The body never was broken, it was going through an adjustment, so to speak and death is a part of that process as it aligns with this environment. I will always be that way. It's a part of the overall process. The more it aligns the better that life will be. There is no such thing as micro or macro. It is infinity in both directions. No matter how small you go, there is something else that makes that up and so on and so on and so on and so on. Out of our comprehension. You bet it is so let's stay on the surface and do the best with what we are naturally capable of seeing with our own two eyes. The body will take care of it self. It needs no help on our part, it is far more wiser than we could ever be. If it is not PRO-LIFE, it will self destruct on it's on. There is absolutely nothing we can do about that. It's built into the system. Homosexuality is probably the most visable representation of ANTI-LIFE that exists on this planet. To effort to justify it only perpetuates it. You must see the logic in this.
It, if left alone, will cure itself. I think cancer and the virus are built into the system. They are apart of that "adjustment".

All love life. It is indeed overwhelming. It has no "cure". It just is. Cures are only bandaids that allow us to ignore the real problem which is clearly evident by using the senses we have available to us including the "common one". The more we invade, the more we loose our common sense. The universe is fully capable of "taking care of itself". It doesn't need our help. I am not an ape. I don't dig into my ass and put my finger in my mouth. I do not have sexual relations with the ape nor do I have anything to do with the ape. I leave the ape alone. Nature will take care of the ape on it's own accord. So please don't in anyway associate me in anyway what so ever with the ape. I would appreciate that. Thank you.
William

Hello, sorry for interupting your conversation, and I know I might just have misunderstood what you are saying since I haven't followed this conversation very closely. I had to read the "will cure itself"-part twice. There are many animals who are homosexuals. I would like to call them pretty left alone, still the homosexuality is there. I don't understand what you mean with "left alone". Should we ignore them or force them to become heterosexuals. Because I highly doubt that would work. And about the cancer and the virus, I might agree with you on the cancerpart, since cancer is caused be changes in the DNA. Do you mean the HIV-virus? Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't virus tiny,tiny(,tiny,tiny) animals, which we are not born with, so in what way could they be built into the system?

The humanbeing isn't perfect. Nature isn't perfect, it's constantly evolving. And you are to 98.5 % the same as the ape, I know it sucks to realize.

Yes, I hear what you are saying. But if you want to be politically correct, get out of the Philosophy trade. Go be a politican. That occupation has nothing to do with the truth. Philosophy is violent and damaging to the uneducated.

But women actually have better communication, smell, night vision or day vison I can't remember. They are complementary to men. And there are more of them compared to us. They are 50.1%. There are more women born than men.

But not many philosophers have said nice things about them. Read Nietzsche's "Beyond Good and Evil."