Ditto, Its ok to unlock later, but keep the original posts there for reference.

You are kidding yes?

Not at all. Homosexual behavior in animals is a well documented fact. In response to the churches call that "homosexuality was not natural" a photographer took hundreds of photos of dozens of different species involved in homosexual intercourse. There is plenty of research into bovine lesbianism, since it can effect a herds milk production.

The thing with apes is from a natural history show I watched many years back, where males where taking beta female roles in looking after offspring.

And I think it was a lion (or other such big cat) that has been seen looking after a goat. Admittedly that was a facebook post, but its not without historic precedent. Symbiotic relationships already exist, it is likely that this kind of deviant behaviour lead to these relationships happening.

The point is. Saying a boy will love (find sexually attractive) a girl and that deviation from that concept is wrong, is a social construct. A group of male ducks wouldn't hunt down a homosexual duck, its sexual preference isn't an issue. Lack of food, territory or percieved threat to mating are reasons.

Life is a combination of different biological imperatives, the imperative to breed is only one of them. Don't forget there are many species where a part of its collective are incapable of breeding (hive animals spring to mind). A species where part of its collective "sacrifices" its need to breed can be beneficial to the whole.

I'm talking more about sexuality in general. On homosexuality, I agree with you but what exactly is the evidence to say that sexual preference is socially constructed? It is not. Theories saying social conditions can affect gender aren't saying they're the only factors affecting gender, if any of them are even proven to be true in the first place.

Funny how people are cool with sexual predators having easy access to women & little girls, but can't stand the thought a thread they don't like being open.

It's nice to see what's really important to some people.

I see.

Sexual preference and gender identity is likely (though strong evidence is many years off) set before birth. The environment itself might be a factor in setting this, as well as random mutation. The bovine study should a significant increase of homosexuals cows in larger herds compared to the same number of cows based in multiple smaller herds.

Post partum, society will start to either enforce or attempt to alter those preferences. For centuries homosexuals would have presented themselves are straight, because of society influence, while those whose genetics follows the social majority would have been conditioned to see deviation as against proper society.

Now most of us live in a more liberal world where our actual genetics predisposition can be expressed. While I have little doubt, some young people would be influenced into saying they're of a preference they're not biologically predisposed to in order to gain social grace (look cool) such actions will rectify themselves in adulthood.

It is the idea that "breasts and womb" means you're a woman, is socially constructed. Its not just a product of a descriptive language, but ingrained into our understanding of the world. And for the vast majority of cases this definition holds true. However to say a member of the Hominidae family with a tail can not be human, is incorrect as humans are born with tails.

The reality is that things are more complex, and as a species we're now only understanding that complexity.
No one on this board has every been happy with the idea.

They believe, and with evidence, that the restricting the rights of 0.3% of people will have no effect on the safety of those people.

As I said, your Adherence to this belief is like thinking a "Keep of the Grass" sign would stop a burglar cutting across the grass to get access to a house.

Why are you so sure? There are many people whose sexual preferences change over time. It's not all that uncommon for children to experiment with the same sex. This whole idea that one's thoughts and ideas are somehow set in the brain and immutable from birth is plain silly. Maybe some pseudo-scientist can "prove" that one's favorite color is determined at birth too. Just the fact that people often change should give you pause about that statement. Did you read the blog post posted by Gnostic? It's a very good read.

Now don't get me wrong. I have no problem with people doing what makes them happy. But it crosses the line when this sort of misinformation is getting spread as if its fact. It crosses the line, when it seems some are trying to suggest that anyone wanting to play with the other sex as a child means one is really transgender (and pre-programmed from birth); that not liking X, which a boy or girl normally likes (due to social conditioning btw) makes one transgender. Sometimes this sounds more like a recruitment drive or something out of the playbook of the Jehovah's Witnesses.

Okay, I've got the wooden stakes. Now hold the thread down for me, okay? Does anyone have anything sharp? We need to cut off it's head once it has a stake driven through it's heart. Just hurry, we need to be done with it before the sun sets!

"Set" may be a strong word.
Biased may be a better way of thinking about it.

I fully agree society can influence many aspects of a persons mental processes, such as sexual orientation, but there is underlying biological factors as well. Its never been nature or nurture, its a factor of both.

I do not believe any one is 100% straight or gay, masculine or feminine. I do not think nature will always trump over nurture or vice a versa. Which I think is linked to this idea that sexual identity is a social construct. On the whole, societies idea of what is male and what is female is ridged and not compatible with the complexity of an individuals mental and physical make up.

However if the biological sway is further than society allows then there are likely to be issues. Having a female persona with in a male form, and not being able to express that is going to be pychologically damaging.

Its the freedom to experiment and to find out who you are that is the right people should be defending. Just because little John wants to be Jill, doesn't mean that they are now and for ever will be Jill.

Biology is a bitch for back tracking mid development, which is why people think the regression of social ability in Autistic children is down to the MMR vaccine.

We have seriously complex systems to govern our mind, a minor alteration in hormone levels can alter a person dramically.

Don't take my statement as support. I think legislating bathrooms is a dumb idea. If an obviously appearing man is dressed like a woman, it has the potential to make waves no matter which bathroom he/she uses. So the entire idea that this legislation is fixing anything is just silly. And when the answer to predators is as simple as, "Call the police if someone is suspiciously hanging out in the restrooms for a long period of time", I don't see how this law changes anything in this regard.

Not sure if this has already been said but let's say that trans people are allowed to go to toilets of their choice. In that case a female to male trans person would go to the men's toilet and will have to use the stall. Now let's consider a male to female trans person who would have to go into a stall in women's toilet. Since they're using a stall anyway, can't they use the same stall in the bathrooms of their birth gender? The only time they are out of stalls is to wash their hands (which shouldn't take more than a couple of minutes) so what's the problem here?

Anyone ever been flying coach and have some asshole from First Class come back to use your toilet?

WTF!?

If one of us tried going into First Class to use their toilet we be shot, stuffed in the baggage hold and jettisoned out over Nebraska, but those pompous rich fucks just get to come and go as they please, don't they!?

They already have the best seats, the expensive champagne, the gourmet cashews, and now they want our toilets!

I say NO!!!!!

You may have taken our dignity, but you are not taking our shitter!

You claim its a matter of both, but is it really? Where is the proof? Do you have twin separation studies to support it? Without proof, you have nothing. It's one thing to attribute biology to physical condition, but show me any evidence that biology has anything to do with thoughts or self-identity?

What I worry about is this idea that if one doesn't fit in, maybe its because they are transgender. A boy who doesn't like sports? Transgender. Or he likes to play with dollhouses with his sister. Transgender. Right? It can't just be a boy who doesn't fit it, but still be a boy? A girl who likes sports, transgender. A girl who doesn't like to wear jewelry, transgender. A lot can be said about the power of suggestion, especially in regards to children at a young age. I think any parent has seen how their friends can sometimes put crazy ideas in their head. Such as stealing Baseball cards from the party store doesn't hurt anyone because they are made of money. But the argument here seems to be if the issue is gender, parents shouldn't be allowed to attempt to correct it; that parents have no right's in the upbringing of their children...

https://www.nsopw.gov/en-CA/Education/FactsStatistics?AspxAutoDetectCookieSupport=1#prepetrators

http://www.csom.org/pubs/needtoknow_fs.pdf