People kill people and you’ve a genetic predisposition towards the sexuality you grow into, it’s a nurture influences nature situation (i.e. how one is raised) that impacts what alleles become active or recessive and that impacts your sexuality (among a wide array of other things, physiological and psychological).
Just because one group of people can’t live within reality doesn’t mean you need to be as equally moronic to ‘prove a point’, especially when the point being presented as ‘equal’ is unabashedly fatuous.
If you read what I actually wrote down allele expression is INFLUENCED by the environment, regardless of what people want to think or want to believe the research supports the hypothesis that sexual identity is not simply a matter of genetic influence nor of just upbringing but a combination thereof.
At no point was heritability mentioned or posited.
Please read what people write and if you don’t understand what is being said you should ask questions instead of exhibiting a clearly sciolist position.
heritability is not mentioned nor even involved in this discussion.
Yep, my bad. Misunderstood the term, I should have said “genetic roots” or something.
allele expression is INFLUENCED by the environment
That claim is quite fair. Stating a relationship can exist is uncontroversial.
… you’ve a genetic predisposition towards the sexuality you grow into, it’s a nurture influences nature situation (i.e. how one is raised) that impacts what alleles become active or recessive and that impacts your sexuality (among a wide array of other things, physiological and psychological).
Frankly I see no other way, from cold context, to read this other than as a claim that there is a “gay gene,” followed by a bit of hedging against the influence of other factors.
Apologies if I’m misinterpreting you. It could be you’re just stringing together a bunch of broadly true claims about what types of relationships can exist between all these factors.
It’s a bit of a “shovel, lye, and a hacksaw in the shopping cart” type scenario. Too many broadly true and relatively unoffensive claims in a particular order start to look suspiciously like a particular argument.
You’re reading into this too much. We’re here to talk about the logical inconsistencies in conservative identity politics. You’re here to have some kind of pedantic debate.
Not everyone who says “guns don’t kill people” is a conservative. I say it, and I’m pretty far from conservative. Go far enough left, you get your guns back.
People kill people and you’ve a genetic predisposition towards the sexuality you grow into, it’s a nurture influences nature situation (i.e. how one is raised) that impacts what alleles become active or recessive and that impacts your sexuality (among a wide array of other things, physiological and psychological).
Just because one group of people can’t live within reality doesn’t mean you need to be as equally moronic to ‘prove a point’, especially when the point being presented as ‘equal’ is unabashedly fatuous.
Alleles becoming dominant or recessive based on upbringing? My brother, what publications have you been reading?
The heritability of sexuality is not a scientifically defensible claim at this point—let alone the other claims you just made.
If you read what I actually wrote down allele expression is INFLUENCED by the environment, regardless of what people want to think or want to believe the research supports the hypothesis that sexual identity is not simply a matter of genetic influence nor of just upbringing but a combination thereof.
At no point was heritability mentioned or posited.
Please read what people write and if you don’t understand what is being said you should ask questions instead of exhibiting a clearly sciolist position.
Here’s a couple of current research papers to get you started: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5033347/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6677266/
And here’s research on genetic expression and how the environment can impact such expression:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9248887/
Once again, and to be extremely clear, heritability is not mentioned nor even involved in this discussion.
Yep, my bad. Misunderstood the term, I should have said “genetic roots” or something.
That claim is quite fair. Stating a relationship can exist is uncontroversial.
Frankly I see no other way, from cold context, to read this other than as a claim that there is a “gay gene,” followed by a bit of hedging against the influence of other factors.
Apologies if I’m misinterpreting you. It could be you’re just stringing together a bunch of broadly true claims about what types of relationships can exist between all these factors.
It’s a bit of a “shovel, lye, and a hacksaw in the shopping cart” type scenario. Too many broadly true and relatively unoffensive claims in a particular order start to look suspiciously like a particular argument.
No idea what I just read but it sounds cringe and has loads of downvotes so I’m afraid I’ll have to downvote you, too
You’re reading into this too much. We’re here to talk about the logical inconsistencies in conservative identity politics. You’re here to have some kind of pedantic debate.
Not everyone who says “guns don’t kill people” is a conservative. I say it, and I’m pretty far from conservative. Go far enough left, you get your guns back.
Oh, no, I’m most assuredly not here to debate.
I stated facts, not opinions.
deleted by creator