When I am hiking, and I encounter a spider or other bug, I yelp in a high-pitched, distinctively girly tone, very different from how most men sound. I am also flamboyantly gay.Do you believe if I was not socialized around girls at all growing up, I would not make these feminine, involuntary sounds?
>>43963734In before TERFs accuse OP of affecting this behaviour in order to mock women
people don't believe in flamers, they think it's just an act
>>43963734It's not socialisation. It's because you were feminised in the womb. Literally all the scientific data shows this and has done for decades. I don't know why this isn't more widely known
>>43964338>it's not genetic you would have been normal and straight if your hormones weren't messed up im hearing homophobia disguised as scienceto wit, 99% of people do not believe the behavior of effeminate gay men is mostly genetic
>>43964359I'm gay. It's only homophobic if you think effeminate behaviour is a bad thing. You're also engaging in the psychogenetic fallacy - you're speculating about the causes of my belief in order to dismiss it before properly ascertaining whether or not it is actually true.Let's break down what you wrote:>you would have been normal and straight if your hormones weren't messed upThat's just an uncharitable way of stating what is really a neutral and uncontroversial claim. Obviously there is something different between gay and straight people that makes some people straight and others gay. You could say this about literally any putative cause for homosexuality. "You would have been normal if your socialisation hadn't been fucked up by not having a father figure/etc." You're the one inserting the value judgement into it.
>>43964410it's homophobic to outright deny a genetic cause to homosexuality, people only do this because it supports their belief that gays are sexual criminals who deserve punishment for existinggayness has existed in steady frequencies for many generations, it just isn't determined by a single gene, and there are possibly multiple polygenetic combos that all make you gay or bi to varying degreeshormones are not powerful enough to wholly reshape brain wiring from female arousal to malegay is a deliberate hardwired code to set the eyes and brain up to respond to male sexual cues
>>43964426I don't think we disagree. Homosexuality is multifactorial and there are probably many different influences upon sexual orientation (plus I think there's a large degree of bisexuality too). Genes play a very strong role. Nevertheless, exposure to hormones in the womb appears to have a strong influence upon adult gender expression and sexual identity. It's possible that genes affect androgen sensitivity and shit too.
>>43964437the purpose of stating homosexuality is hormonal is because conservatives fear by admitting gays are genetically coded for, they would have to treat them as people, because the human body is directly coding for this state, it isn't an accident, or an aberrating, it's pre-determined with no alteration at any point of development>Nevertheless, exposure to hormones in the womb appears to have a strong influence weasel words that mean nothing
>>43964457You seem to think I'm suggesting that homosexuality can be suppressed by hormone manipulation in adults. That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that hormonal influences in the womb at very certain points alter the sexual neurology of the foetus. You're also engaging in the psychogenetic fallacy again. It doesn't matter what motivates a particular scientific claim; it only matters whether or not it is true. And I already told you I am gay, and frankly I am a homosexual supremacist.Also, it doesn't matter what the genesis of homosexuality is, homosexuality shouldn't be condemned
>>43964487If conservatives had the technology to suppress homosexuality SERIOUSLY, like actually making people's brains rewire, they would be doing that instantly. Saying that homosexuality is an error of hormones, and implying it can't be pre-coded for is subtly condemning it, that's kinda my point.
>>43964498Who cares? We're talking about what's true or not true, not what's convenient to believe. Are you going to say that homosexuality isn't caused by genes once gene-editing technology becomes more widely available? Will we revert to Plato's explanation about the mythical hermaphrodites?
>>43964513What's true is that you can't make someone gay who isn't genetically coded for it with hormones. There is no straight default setting that genetically applies to all humans. This is the literal foundational basis of heteronormativity that you are enforcing, the belief that, without error or mistake, all humans would be heterosexual.
>>43964530"Error" and "mistake" are subjective value judgements you're imposing on these processes
>>43964540your belief is that gayness is not present from day 1 in womb development, that it is a transition due to unusual chemical environments rather than something pre-determined in the zygote by code
>>43964549So? Genes respond to environmental influences. One theory for why homosexual orientation persists is that males with "gay genes" who are nevertheless heterosexual experience higher reproductive success. You appear to be attaching a lot of value to the idea that genes have purpose and value in themselves. You're attributing telos to them. As if genes have some moral value, are an intentional design, are a blueprint for "the way you're meant to be".
>>43964565>that males with "gay genes" who are nevertheless heterosexual lotsa closeted dudes
