Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
nodle

The too many genders thread/discussion

Recommended Posts

That's a retarded argument on several levels. The number of LGBTQ people is tiny, a fraction of a fraction. Our bodies are designed to want to reproduce, its a biological imperative. LGBTQ are by all accounts mutations and abnormalities of that biological imperative, but that doesn't make them any less human. Outside of bisexuals, people don't choose to be LGBTQ.

Bisexuals don't choose to be bisexual either, just to clarify. Your last sentence slightly implies that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
LGBTQ are by all accounts mutations and abnormalities of that biological imperative, but that doesn't make them any less human. Outside of bisexuals, people don't choose to be LGBTQ.

Evolution works on a population level, not an individual level. If it's advantageous in some way for a group to have a certain number of gay individuals, gay individuals will continue to exist. Ant societies are mostly infertile, but those infertile members exist because it's advantageous to the species. Similarly, there is speculation that gay members are helpful to have in a population. An individual who is gay (and depending on their sex) can be trusted to stay with wives/husbands without poaching mates, and without kids of their own, they are free to occasionally watch children to give the parents a break. The gay person can also accumulate a lot of resources that would've been spent on children, which means that with a large amount of capital (so to speak) they could fund something big, like paying for a nephew's education. They can also fill other important societal roles where having children might interfere with their duties, but where having that roll fulfilled is very beneficial to the group.

 

There may also be 2 sets of gay genes, genes that make a woman gay, and other genes that make a man gay, that could be reproductively advantageous in the other sex. E.g. a man has gay genes and doesn't reproduce, but his sister has those genes and that makes her extra fertile and attracted to men, increasing the number of children she has, balancing out her brother's lack of children. As a result the gay genes continue to propagate.

 

Genes can also be pretty refined. The sex ratio at birth is 1.06 males for every 1.00 females born. Somehow evolution was able to work it out and tweak our sex ratios with the fact in mind that boys die more often as children than girls, so that by the time of reproductive age, it's close to a 1:1 ratio. Similarly I wouldn't be surprised that there's genes influencing how often a gay kid pops out.

 

Also bisexuals don't really choose to be bisexual either. I'm straight but not attracted to all women - similarly a bisexual might have preferences among men/women, maybe even preferring a gender, but no absolute exclusions like how I exclude all men.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think you missed the point. If all the men want to be women and all the women want to be men, who will make the babies? I've seen multiple instances of parents deciding for their children what gender they should be, and I cant help but think of it as anything other than taking advantage of a human being in their most vulnerable state. Shits fucked. Just like your shitty sense of humor.

 

Now that's pure fear mongering. Like Phalanx already said, homosexuals are a tiny fraction of our population. Humanity will end, sooner than we may think. But it won't be because we refuse to reproduce because of our sexual orientation. And knowing many of these instances aswell, it turned out many many times that the child turned out to act according to their actual sex. Gender can't be forced on you, just like you can't force sexual orientation on someone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The bisexual comment I made was in the sense of normally straight people who decide to have a fling with a person of the same sex on a rare or random occasion. For example, many straight guys say that if a certain celebrity solicited them they wouldn't say no. IE me as a straight person, if Patrick Stewart came up to me, I probably wouldn't say no. But that is of course the exception. Also, its very much a cultural thing, there have been several historical cultures that encouraged bisexual relations, such as Classical Greeks. I don't know what percentage of Greek males kept both female and male lovers, but I'm quite sure it was a higher percentage than what actual bisexuals accounted for. Otherwise, yes, normal bisexuals don't choose, they simply are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah there's also a big cultural component, but in a way that's still the culture "choosing" it for you, not some individual consciously thinking "I've decided I'll be gay". Those cultures also placed more emphasis on the type of sexual activity, and not who it was with. It was important to be the penetrator, and not the penetrated one. So while you can't perfectly translate their mores to modern sexuality, essentially you would only be the "gay" one if you were the catcher and not the pitcher.

 

Also I don't know, I hear that thing mostly only among women, not men, though again there's that cultural component that makes bisexuality a lot more okay for women than men. I've personally never felt any such desire though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yeah there's also a big cultural component, but in a way that's still the culture "choosing" it for you, not some individual consciously thinking "I've decided I'll be gay". Those cultures also placed more emphasis on the type of sexual activity, and not who it was with. It was important to be the penetrator, and not the penetrated one. So while you can't perfectly translate their mores to modern sexuality, essentially you would only be the "gay" one if you were the catcher and not the pitcher.

 

Also I don't know, I hear that thing mostly only among women, not men, though again there's that cultural component that makes bisexuality a lot more okay for women than men. I've personally never felt any such desire though.

 

As a woman, you've never felt the desire to be bisexual?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

God doesn't exist and if by accident he does exist, he can suck my balls.

As Richard Dawkins said:

"The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully."

Do you accidentally have mental problems? Have you ever speak to a psychologist?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Do you accidentally have mental problems? Have you ever speak to a psychologist?

Nope, never spoken to one. But I think that it would be more necessary for you, seeing you believe in ghosts, an old book and fairy tales.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nope, never spoken to one. But I think that it would be more necessary for you, seeing you believe in ghosts, an old book and fairy tales.

 

I believe in fairy tales. Do I need a shrink?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

EDIT: I see people cant grasp the message so here rephrased version: do we agree that gays were traditionally viewed as a path to extinction? Because two dicks cant make a baby alright, and back in the day with high mortality rates due to wars and plagues and low life expectancy rate due to stone age culture also known as Medieval christianity that banned sewers, nudity and proclaimed lices as god's pearls, it becomes clear that it would've taken much lower percentage of gay people for general population to feel the population decline than it is today. Thus they were treated much harsher than they are now, because modern medcine and most importantly cultural breakthroughs like washing hands after the toilet makes it possible even for homeless junkies to live longer than medieval royalty did back then and society became more lenient on gays as it can now tolerate a certain percentage of non-breeders without any noticeable population decline because now humans live way longer and die way less often and can pop out much more larvas over their lifespan than their counterparts say 600 years ago could to make up for their non-breeding gay comrades. So being gay and therefore unable to shit out babies like turds is less hounded these days because humans are out of danger zone of being extinct as species, in fact we are thousand times more common than we really should be unlike say 2000 years ago, where everyday mortal danger for entire cities and ethnicities was a routine and ordinary thing. Entire abrahamic ideologies are built on the concept of procreation or else inevitable extinction but these days its hardly an issue. Cause really what is the biggest danger to us today? Death of obesity at 65? lol 3902665932_3888c35915.jpg

Yet still though, those ethnicities whose people turn gay less for whatever reasons

(mostly religious like islam which still lives in middle ages with low life expectancy and high mortality in mind and thus punishes anti-procreationists with death because apparently if not enough babies are popped out there will be extinction blah blah baah baah)

will see their ethnicity overwhelm and outmuscle ethnicities that have a higher gay percentage because thats just basic math - if 3 of my children are straight and pop out 6 more children of their own and only 2 of your children are straight (one is gay) and pop out 3 children of their own in few generations my seed will inevitably outnumber yours. That's why I always chuckle at unholy alliance of sjws and muslims as sjws blow out fundamental christian (even though they are idiots too but they won't kill you for being gay) disdain of gays out of proportion while in the very muslim middle east the penalty for homosexuality is death, but then again sjws are contagiously deluded dangerously self-contradicting modern inquisitor fanatics with double standards degree rivaling the one of talmud and should be avoided by any reasonable person to start with

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
EDIT: I see people cant grasp the message so here rephrased version: do we agree that gays were traditionally viewed as a path to extinction? Because two dicks cant make a baby alright, and back in the day with high mortality rates due to wars and plagues and low life expectancy rate due to stone age culture also known as Medieval christianity that banned sewers, nudity and proclaimed lices as god's pearls, it becomes clear that it would've taken much lower percentage of gay people for general population to feel the population decline than it is today. Thus they were treated much harsher than they are now, because modern medcine and most importantly cultural breakthroughs like washing hands after the toilet makes it possible even for homeless junkies to live longer than medieval royalty did back then and society became more lenient on gays as it can now tolerate a certain percentage of non-breeders without any noticeable population decline because now humans live way longer and die way less often and can pop out much more larvas over their lifespan than their counterparts say 600 years ago could to make up for their non-breeding gay comrades. So being gay and therefore unable to shit out babies like turds is less hounded these days because humans are out of danger zone of being extinct as species, in fact we are thousand times more common than we really should be unlike say 2000 years ago, where everyday mortal danger for entire cities and ethnicities was a routine and ordinary thing. Entire abrahamic ideologies are built on the concept of procreation or else inevitable extinction but these days its hardly an issue. Cause really what is the biggest danger to us today? Death of obesity at 65? lol 3902665932_3888c35915.jpg

Yet still though, those ethnicities whose people turn gay less for whatever reasons

(mostly religious like islam which still lives in middle ages with low life expectancy and high mortality in mind and thus punishes anti-procreationists with death because apparently if not enough babies are popped out there will be extinction blah blah baah baah)

will see their ethnicity overwhelm and outmuscle ethnicities that have a higher gay percentage because thats just basic math - if 3 of my children are straight and pop out 6 more children of their own and only 2 of your children are straight (one is gay) and pop out 3 children of their own in few generations my seed will inevitably outnumber yours. That's why I always chuckle at unholy alliance of sjws and muslims as sjws blow out fundamental christian (even though they are idiots too but they won't kill you for being gay) disdain of gays out of proportion while in the very muslim middle east the penalty for homosexuality is death, but then again sjws are contagiously deluded dangerously self-contradicting modern inquisitor fanatics with double standards degree rivaling the one of talmud and should be avoided by any reasonable person to start with

 

 

I don t see how being gay equal having different gender

fuck whatever you want for all i care but you ain t getting special gender just because you fucked a man with a penis or a horse if you are zoophile

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
EDIT: I see people cant grasp the message so here rephrased version: do we agree that gays were traditionally viewed as a path to extinction? Because two dicks cant make a baby alright, and back in the day with high mortality rates due to wars and plagues and low life expectancy rate due to stone age culture also known as Medieval christianity that banned sewers, nudity and proclaimed lices as god's pearls, it becomes clear that it would've taken much lower percentage of gay people for general population to feel the population decline than it is today. Thus they were treated much harsher than they are now, because modern medcine and most importantly cultural breakthroughs like washing hands after the toilet makes it possible even for homeless junkies to live longer than medieval royalty did back then and society became more lenient on gays as it can now tolerate a certain percentage of non-breeders without any noticeable population decline because now humans live way longer and die way less often and can pop out much more larvas over their lifespan than their counterparts say 600 years ago could to make up for their non-breeding gay comrades. So being gay and therefore unable to shit out babies like turds is less hounded these days because humans are out of danger zone of being extinct as species, in fact we are thousand times more common than we really should be unlike say 2000 years ago, where everyday mortal danger for entire cities and ethnicities was a routine and ordinary thing. Entire abrahamic ideologies are built on the concept of procreation or else inevitable extinction but these days its hardly an issue. Cause really what is the biggest danger to us today? Death of obesity at 65? lol 3902665932_3888c35915.jpg

Yet still though, those ethnicities whose people turn gay less for whatever reasons

(mostly religious like islam which still lives in middle ages with low life expectancy and high mortality in mind and thus punishes anti-procreationists with death because apparently if not enough babies are popped out there will be extinction blah blah baah baah)

will see their ethnicity overwhelm and outmuscle ethnicities that have a higher gay percentage because thats just basic math - if 3 of my children are straight and pop out 6 more children of their own and only 2 of your children are straight (one is gay) and pop out 3 children of their own in few generations my seed will inevitably outnumber yours. That's why I always chuckle at unholy alliance of sjws and muslims as sjws blow out fundamental christian (even though they are idiots too but they won't kill you for being gay) disdain of gays out of proportion while in the very muslim middle east the penalty for homosexuality is death, but then again sjws are contagiously deluded dangerously self-contradicting modern inquisitor fanatics with double standards degree rivaling the one of talmud and should be avoided by any reasonable person to start with

[ATTACH=full]5938[/ATTACH]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
EDIT: I see people cant grasp the message so here rephrased version: do we agree that gays were traditionally viewed as a path to extinction? Because two dicks cant make a baby alright, and back in the day with high mortality rates due to wars and plagues and low life expectancy rate due to stone age culture also known as Medieval christianity that banned sewers, nudity and proclaimed lices as god's pearls, it becomes clear that it would've taken much lower percentage of gay people for general population to feel the population decline than it is today. Thus they were treated much harsher than they are now, because modern medcine and most importantly cultural breakthroughs like washing hands after the toilet makes it possible even for homeless junkies to live longer than medieval royalty did back then and society became more lenient on gays as it can now tolerate a certain percentage of non-breeders without any noticeable population decline because now humans live way longer and die way less often and can pop out much more larvas over their lifespan than their counterparts say 600 years ago could to make up for their non-breeding gay comrades. So being gay and therefore unable to shit out babies like turds is less hounded these days because humans are out of danger zone of being extinct as species, in fact we are thousand times more common than we really should be unlike say 2000 years ago, where everyday mortal danger for entire cities and ethnicities was a routine and ordinary thing. Entire abrahamic ideologies are built on the concept of procreation or else inevitable extinction but these days its hardly an issue. Cause really what is the biggest danger to us today? Death of obesity at 65? lol 3902665932_3888c35915.jpg

Yet still though, those ethnicities whose people turn gay less for whatever reasons

(mostly religious like islam which still lives in middle ages with low life expectancy and high mortality in mind and thus punishes anti-procreationists with death because apparently if not enough babies are popped out there will be extinction blah blah baah baah)

will see their ethnicity overwhelm and outmuscle ethnicities that have a higher gay percentage because thats just basic math - if 3 of my children are straight and pop out 6 more children of their own and only 2 of your children are straight (one is gay) and pop out 3 children of their own in few generations my seed will inevitably outnumber yours. That's why I always chuckle at unholy alliance of sjws and muslims as sjws blow out fundamental christian (even though they are idiots too but they won't kill you for being gay) disdain of gays out of proportion while in the very muslim middle east the penalty for homosexuality is death, but then again sjws are contagiously deluded dangerously self-contradicting modern inquisitor fanatics with double standards degree rivaling the one of talmud and should be avoided by any reasonable person to start with

But the Greeks.

 

Checkmate liberals..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Inb4 i im Napoleon cuz im napoleon gender.

 

Also, Gracia:

 

 

[ATTACH=full]5937[/ATTACH]

 

If a man thinks he's Napoleon, we put him in a mental institution. If a man thinks he's a woman, his rights need protecting?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
EDIT: I see people cant grasp the message so here rephrased version: do we agree that gays were traditionally viewed as a path to extinction? Because two dicks cant make a baby alright, and back in the day with high mortality rates due to wars and plagues and low life expectancy rate due to stone age culture also known as Medieval christianity that banned sewers, nudity and proclaimed lices as god's pearls, it becomes clear that it would've taken much lower percentage of gay people for general population to feel the population decline than it is today. Thus they were treated much harsher than they are now, because modern medcine and most importantly cultural breakthroughs like washing hands after the toilet makes it possible even for homeless junkies to live longer than medieval royalty did back then and society became more lenient on gays as it can now tolerate a certain percentage of non-breeders without any noticeable population decline because now humans live way longer and die way less often and can pop out much more larvas over their lifespan than their counterparts say 600 years ago could to make up for their non-breeding gay comrades. So being gay and therefore unable to shit out babies like turds is less hounded these days because humans are out of danger zone of being extinct as species, in fact we are thousand times more common than we really should be unlike say 2000 years ago, where everyday mortal danger for entire cities and ethnicities was a routine and ordinary thing. Entire abrahamic ideologies are built on the concept of procreation or else inevitable extinction but these days its hardly an issue. Cause really what is the biggest danger to us today? Death of obesity at 65? lol 3902665932_3888c35915.jpg

Yet still though, those ethnicities whose people turn gay less for whatever reasons

(mostly religious like islam which still lives in middle ages with low life expectancy and high mortality in mind and thus punishes anti-procreationists with death because apparently if not enough babies are popped out there will be extinction blah blah baah baah)

will see their ethnicity overwhelm and outmuscle ethnicities that have a higher gay percentage because thats just basic math - if 3 of my children are straight and pop out 6 more children of their own and only 2 of your children are straight (one is gay) and pop out 3 children of their own in few generations my seed will inevitably outnumber yours. That's why I always chuckle at unholy alliance of sjws and muslims as sjws blow out fundamental christian (even though they are idiots too but they won't kill you for being gay) disdain of gays out of proportion while in the very muslim middle east the penalty for homosexuality is death, but then again sjws are contagiously deluded dangerously self-contradicting modern inquisitor fanatics with double standards degree rivaling the one of talmud and should be avoided by any reasonable person to start with

 

There's some argument to be made that since gays can have kids, putting gay people into a cultural context where the concept of homosexuality does not exist might increase the pressure on them to have families anyway. However the demographic effects would have to be based on the marginal gain in population based on what percentage of homosexuals choose to have kids and families due to the social pressure. And doing that math would require years of research in some weird blend of social anthropology and demographic statistics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yeah but there ain't a Napoleon hormone. I can confirm that E and T are quite different.

 

It was a Feanor joke so obviously nobody laughed, but did you really have to take it seriously?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...