Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: Hjernevask


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Hjernevask Page: <<   < prev  5 6 [7] 8 9   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Hjernevask - 10/26/2016 12:33:32 AM   
tweakabelle


Posts: 7522
Joined: 10/16/2007
From: Sydney Australia
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

Nice try VincentML.

Assuming that your experiment is possible, and even granting an optimal outcome for your experiment, all that you are claiming it would demonstrate is potentially "significant correlations". This is a long way short of the causal relationship necessary for a theory of biological gender determination to be established.

It's interesting that you introduce evidence of brain scans on transgender people. If gender was biologically determined, the transgender phenomenon wouldn't exist would it? If gender was biologically determined, these people's gender identities would remain consistent with their biological sex, which is the exact opposite of what happens in the cases of many transgender people.


Thank you, Tweak (no snark intended)

First, I do not agree with your assertion in the second paragraph. Genetic determinism does not eliminate non-polar variation. Genetic inheritance is far more complex than that. Witness the difficulty in trying to define what a "species" is in evolution by natural selection. More and more intermediary variations are recognized.

Also, we witness pink flowers as well as red ones and white ones.

Secondly, about the brain scans. I was not championing them as cause and effect. I realize in the case of brain scans we can't tell if the variations in cortical measurements are the cause of gender identity dysphoria or the result. And I did mention that transgendered people tend to have measurements closer to their desired role than their biological apparatus.

I did not propose an experiment.

I was indulging in a thought narrative that would solve the two problems raised by Tamaka and you. Namely the role of controls and objectivity in scientific endeavor regarding the roots of gender identity.

Hell, I am not even championing biological determinism of gender identity. I respect the role early environment plays in character development.

That is why I very deliberately suggested conducting a survey to search out correlations between genetic markers and gender self-identities. No problems with controls or objectivity when merely collecting hard data, regardless of the strength of the correlations.

Both Darwin and Einstein constructed theories from observations (one in nature and one in mathematics) The experiments come after the model is constructed and predictions are made from it.

By the time I am done with the longitudinal survey (I will be really, really old . . . lol!) the ethics and safety of a gene editing technique ( Crispr-Cas9 ) will have been resolved.

At that point we will have collected our genetic markers and we would be able to make predictions to experiment on cause and effect. In the Huxlian utopia (dystopia?) of the future we would proceed to edit sperm and ova to test the model.

As I said, just a thought exercise to resolve the problems suggested above.



Fair enough Vincent. Introducing notions of diversity and multiplicity is a step in the right direction IMHO.

However this just complicates the picture for those interested in biological gender determinism. As these notions are introduced, the supremacy of the binary sex model - the idea that all humans are sexed either female or male - is weakened accordingly. This then leads to a further problem - the lack of any biological marker that correctly identifies gender in all cases. For instance there are XY females and XX males.

This in turn opens the door to another problem. Contrary to popular belief, the current categories of male and female are not static immobile and historically stable. They have changed over the years for reasons that have nothing to do with science or knowledge. The current model - of binary M/F sex - only achieved its dominant position a few centuries ago, long before the discovery of genes chromosome and hormones, the things most people believe 'prove' our 'true' sex and/or gender. These categories are still changing as transgender 'sex changes' become more widely recognised and accepted legally and socially. Differentiating gender categories that are more and more fluid and open to change renders the quest for deterministic explanations obsolete.

In my experience, the more one investigates gender the more complex nuanced and varied the overall picture becomes, and the less that matrix lends itself to crude reductionist deterministic explanations.

< Message edited by tweakabelle -- 10/26/2016 12:35:51 AM >


_____________________________



(in reply to vincentML)
Profile   Post #: 121
RE: Hjernevask - 10/26/2016 5:13:57 AM   
Awareness


Posts: 3918
Joined: 9/8/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Edwird


quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne
Women 'instinctively' pull out a titty to feed and care for an infant, and all that follows. Men do not.


What horse feathers. In the first place, the mother does not 'pull out a titty,' she puts the infant to her nipple. I think you just like saying it that way. Just as you are so fond of saying 'gubmint,' 'gubblemint,' etc. which just like the 'pull out a titty' thing immediately brings a picture to mind of some dunk with a worn John Deere ball cap on, chewing on a straw with all three of his teeth as he says it.

And I have never in my life seen a female 'instinctively' put an infant to her breast or make any motions to that end just because she sees or even holds somebody else's baby.

Dude, women can lactate in response to a baby's cry - even one that is not their own and even after they've weaned their own child.

If you think biology stops at the parasympathetic nervous system, then I've got a bridge to sell you.


_____________________________

Ever notice how fucking annoying most signatures are? - Yes, I do appreciate the irony.

(in reply to Edwird)
Profile   Post #: 122
RE: Hjernevask - 10/26/2016 5:36:58 AM   
Lucylastic


Posts: 40310
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Awareness


quote:

ORIGINAL: Edwird


quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne
Women 'instinctively' pull out a titty to feed and care for an infant, and all that follows. Men do not.


What horse feathers. In the first place, the mother does not 'pull out a titty,' she puts the infant to her nipple. I think you just like saying it that way. Just as you are so fond of saying 'gubmint,' 'gubblemint,' etc. which just like the 'pull out a titty' thing immediately brings a picture to mind of some dunk with a worn John Deere ball cap on, chewing on a straw with all three of his teeth as he says it.

And I have never in my life seen a female 'instinctively' put an infant to her breast or make any motions to that end just because she sees or even holds somebody else's baby.

Dude, women can lactate in response to a baby's cry - even one that is not their own and even after they've weaned their own child.

If you think biology stops at the parasympathetic nervous system, then I've got a bridge to sell you.


there is a big difference between lactating thru the parasympathetic system, and "instinctively pulling out a tit".
And unless Lactation is a fetish for a woman
leaky tits isnt all the fun you think it might be...
But I will bow to your "superior ignorance" on the subject.



_____________________________

(•_•)
<) )╯SUCH
/ \

\(•_•)
( (> A NASTY
/ \

(•_•)
<) )> WOMAN
/ \

Duchess Of Dissent
Dont Hate Love

(in reply to Awareness)
Profile   Post #: 123
RE: Hjernevask - 10/26/2016 5:42:31 AM   
Awareness


Posts: 3918
Joined: 9/8/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle
Assuming that your experiment is possible, and even granting an optimal outcome for your experiment, all that you are claiming it would demonstrate is potentially "significant correlations". This is a long way short of the causal relationship necessary for a theory of biological gender determination to be established.
*chortles* Whereas your theory that gender is a social construction has enormous amounts of ev-... what's that? You have NO EVIDENCE for your theory of gender as a social construction? You're shitting me, right? Surely you must have SOMETHING.

As they say, absence of evidence does not provide evidence of absence, but that sure as shit is the claim you're attempting to make. You're engaging in argumentum ad ignorantiam and you supposedly based a PHD on this? Your examiners must have been incompetent.

quote:

It's interesting that you introduce evidence of brain scans on transgender people. If gender was biologically determined, the transgender phenomenon wouldn't exist would it?
Nonsense. There's no evidence that, in the vast majority of cases, transgenderism is anything other than a mental illness.

quote:

If gender was biologically determined, these people's gender identities would remain consistent with their biological sex, which is the exact opposite of what happens in the cases of many transgender people.
Part of what I enjoy about you is watching you trip yourself up with non-logic.

If consistency with biological sex is the EXACT OPPOSITE of what occurs with transgender people, then CLEARLY, that's a binary state. You can have consistency with your biological sex or the opposite of your biological sex. Ergo, gender is a binary state and consequently your "more than 2 genders" and "gender fluidity" speculations are clearly fucking nonsense.

This is the problem. You're not a thinker and you fail to understand that you're holding mutually exclusive opinions.

For example: If gender is a social construct, then why do transgender folk simply not declare "I am of this gender" and be done with it? Why do they - in their quest for supposed gender resolution - align themselves with all the external signs we associate with the masculine or the feminine. Transgender women dress as women do, wear makeup as women do, adjust their vocal pitch to be more like that of a woman, take hormones so their biology aligns with that of women and then pay a surgeon to cut them until they biologically resemble women as much as possible. Transgender men bulk up on the testosterone and wear male clothing.

If gender is a social construct, then why are transgender people obsessed with biology? And why, after engaging in transition surgery do they STILL commit suicide at rates 20 times that of the average individual? Perhaps because a significant number (one study found 62.7%) also have at least one mental illness. Do ya think that might have something to do with it?

The problem, as I see it, is that ignorance and stupidity like yours, kills. Current treatment options for the transgendered do nothing to address their condition. And the high presence of mental illness supports the idea that gender dysphoria is largely a psychological disorder. Attributing the high suicide rates of the transgendered to "society gives them a rough time" is irresponsible. And using their condition as a prop for your own fucked up ides on gender is a disgusting, morally bankrupt thing to do. These people need genuine help and they're not getting it.

There are exceptions where chromosomal variation can interfere with nominal development and result in individuals with biology which may contribute to this kind of condition. However, and this is the kicker, to accept this, you have to accept the idea that gender is controlled by biology. And this is an area of study which genuinely requires more research.

See, this is the problem, you nutty, man-hating, pseudo-intellectual. You cannot think and reason to save your life. You trot out the same nonsense you were indoctrinated with and can't even begin to examine the non-logic implied. Once again, "incompetent" is the most apt description which comes to mind.

_____________________________

Ever notice how fucking annoying most signatures are? - Yes, I do appreciate the irony.

(in reply to tweakabelle)
Profile   Post #: 124
RE: Hjernevask - 10/26/2016 6:46:17 AM   
PeonForHer


Posts: 19612
Joined: 9/27/2008
Status: offline
FR

Vincent, Tweakabelle ....

Interesting points both sides. However, I find neither of your contributions at all convincing, I'm afraid, because neither of you have

a) Called the other any insulting names, particularly those that reference 'gender failings' (bitch etc for females; nancy etc for males)
b) Disparaged the intellectual and reasoning powers of the other
c) Cast aspersions on the sanity of the other
d) Used the word 'fucking' ... even once; much less the minimum-required of five times per sentence.

Could you both sort out these issues and discuss the matter *in the accepted manner*, please?

_____________________________

http://www.domme-chronicles.com


(in reply to Awareness)
Profile   Post #: 125
RE: Hjernevask - 10/26/2016 7:30:15 AM   
tweakabelle


Posts: 7522
Joined: 10/16/2007
From: Sydney Australia
Status: offline
Yes. It is amusing and revealing to note that those who making the loudest noises about 'science' and how their particular opinion is 'science-based' and 'correct' while all others are ignorant/wrong are those whose posts embody the very opposite of the scientific approach.

Science is supposed to be conducted quietly in a low key dispassionate objective fashion, a realm where ideas are exchanged and abuse, dogmatism, ignorance, over statement, ego- and emotional-investments and unsupported claims are absolute no-nos. Indeed the presence of these negative qualities that signify the precise opposite of a scientific approach, that said approach is anything but scientific. The production of knowledge is incompatible with that kind of ego- and emotional-investment and -gratification

It's a case of those who shout the loudest knowing the least, and the irony of those same people wrapping themselves in the flag of science while butchering the scientific method floats way above their heads. They seem utterly unaware of their ridiculousness. Sad and pathetic.

< Message edited by tweakabelle -- 10/26/2016 7:35:54 AM >


_____________________________



(in reply to PeonForHer)
Profile   Post #: 126
RE: Hjernevask - 10/26/2016 7:35:46 AM   
vincentML


Posts: 9980
Joined: 10/31/2009
Status: offline
quote:

However this just complicates the picture for those interested in biological gender determinism. As these notions are introduced, the supremacy of the binary sex model - the idea that all humans are sexed either female or male - is weakened accordingly. This then leads to a further problem - the lack of any biological marker that correctly identifies gender in all cases. For instance there are XY females and XX males.

We cannot rely on the chromosomes as markers, Tweak, nor should we now that we are able to parse entire genomes with accuracy. Even identical twins do not necessarily have identical genomes. In some cases one twin has multiples of one or more genes. COPY NUMBER VARIANTS The variety of genomes among identical twins opens the case for biological determination of intermediate genders, in my mind anyway. Brings to mind the case of Nicole and Jonas we once discussed.

Then, what do we mean by "intermediate genders?" Does that mean there are three, four, or five genders? Or does it mean that the brain and body are not in agreement, and that some choose to reconcile the disagreement by changing the body, and some do not. What is lost in the discussion is that there are probably numerous intersexed folks who reconcile their minds to the confusion and never assume the overt trans lifestyle. We don't know much about them (speaking for myself)

It may be the irresolution of the disparity that leads to depression and suicide.

_____________________________

vML

Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter. ~ MLK Jr.

(in reply to tweakabelle)
Profile   Post #: 127
RE: Hjernevask - 10/26/2016 9:51:11 AM   
Awareness


Posts: 3918
Joined: 9/8/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle
Science is supposed to be conducted quietly in a low key dispassionate objective fashion, a realm where ideas are exchanged and abuse, dogmatism, ignorance, over statement, ego- and emotional-investments and unsupported claims are absolute no-nos. Indeed the presence of these negative qualities that signify the precise opposite of a scientific approach, that said approach is anything but scientific. The production of knowledge is incompatible with that kind of ego- and emotional-investment and -gratification


Right, with you so far.

quote:


It's a case of those who shout the loudest knowing the least, and the irony of those same people wrapping themselves in the flag of science while butchering the scientific method floats way above their heads. They seem utterly unaware of their ridiculousness. Sad and pathetic.


LOL! Ironic poster is ironic! Honestly, you cannot buy this level of entertainment!

Your lack of self-awareness is truly hilarious to behold.

_____________________________

Ever notice how fucking annoying most signatures are? - Yes, I do appreciate the irony.

(in reply to tweakabelle)
Profile   Post #: 128
RE: Hjernevask - 10/26/2016 10:21:25 AM   
Awareness


Posts: 3918
Joined: 9/8/2010
Status: offline
Now now Peon, be generous. Share your tissues with Twink.

_____________________________

Ever notice how fucking annoying most signatures are? - Yes, I do appreciate the irony.

(in reply to PeonForHer)
Profile   Post #: 129
RE: Hjernevask - 10/26/2016 2:00:11 PM   
tamaka


Posts: 5079
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Awareness


quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle
Assuming that your experiment is possible, and even granting an optimal outcome for your experiment, all that you are claiming it would demonstrate is potentially "significant correlations". This is a long way short of the causal relationship necessary for a theory of biological gender determination to be established.
*chortles* Whereas your theory that gender is a social construction has enormous amounts of ev-... what's that? You have NO EVIDENCE for your theory of gender as a social construction? You're shitting me, right? Surely you must have SOMETHING.

As they say, absence of evidence does not provide evidence of absence, but that sure as shit is the claim you're attempting to make. You're engaging in argumentum ad ignorantiam and you supposedly based a PHD on this? Your examiners must have been incompetent.

quote:

It's interesting that you introduce evidence of brain scans on transgender people. If gender was biologically determined, the transgender phenomenon wouldn't exist would it?
Nonsense. There's no evidence that, in the vast majority of cases, transgenderism is anything other than a mental illness.

quote:

If gender was biologically determined, these people's gender identities would remain consistent with their biological sex, which is the exact opposite of what happens in the cases of many transgender people.
Part of what I enjoy about you is watching you trip yourself up with non-logic.

If consistency with biological sex is the EXACT OPPOSITE of what occurs with transgender people, then CLEARLY, that's a binary state. You can have consistency with your biological sex or the opposite of your biological sex. Ergo, gender is a binary state and consequently your "more than 2 genders" and "gender fluidity" speculations are clearly fucking nonsense.

This is the problem. You're not a thinker and you fail to understand that you're holding mutually exclusive opinions.

For example: If gender is a social construct, then why do transgender folk simply not declare "I am of this gender" and be done with it? Why do they - in their quest for supposed gender resolution - align themselves with all the external signs we associate with the masculine or the feminine. Transgender women dress as women do, wear makeup as women do, adjust their vocal pitch to be more like that of a woman, take hormones so their biology aligns with that of women and then pay a surgeon to cut them until they biologically resemble women as much as possible. Transgender men bulk up on the testosterone and wear male clothing.

If gender is a social construct, then why are transgender people obsessed with biology? And why, after engaging in transition surgery do they STILL commit suicide at rates 20 times that of the average individual? Perhaps because a significant number (one study found 62.7%) also have at least one mental illness. Do ya think that might have something to do with it?

The problem, as I see it, is that ignorance and stupidity like yours, kills. Current treatment options for the transgendered do nothing to address their condition. And the high presence of mental illness supports the idea that gender dysphoria is largely a psychological disorder. Attributing the high suicide rates of the transgendered to "society gives them a rough time" is irresponsible. And using their condition as a prop for your own fucked up ides on gender is a disgusting, morally bankrupt thing to do. These people need genuine help and they're not getting it.

There are exceptions where chromosomal variation can interfere with nominal development and result in individuals with biology which may contribute to this kind of condition. However, and this is the kicker, to accept this, you have to accept the idea that gender is controlled by biology. And this is an area of study which genuinely requires more research.

See, this is the problem, you nutty, man-hating, pseudo-intellectual. You cannot think and reason to save your life. You trot out the same nonsense you were indoctrinated with and can't even begin to examine the non-logic implied. Once again, "incompetent" is the most apt description which comes to mind.


I read this and i started thinking... what if the whole transgender thing is actually a form of dissociation... a form of identity disorder where you no longer identify with yourself. Perhaps some type of trauma happened (could be even as simple as a bad argument or something more severe) where the person decided that they didn't want to 'be' that. Do they disassociated with their gender... perhaps spent some time in a 'fog' (not really associating with male or female) and then chose the construct of the 'Other' gender as a survival strategy. If this were true, it could be difficult to diagnose because most likely the person wouldn't remember the trigger and they might not be self- aware enough to observe that process happening in themself.

If this were true, it would suggest a type of treatment to help the person identify any resentment (for lack of a better word) against their birth biological sex and construct a healthy view of it. But perhaps by this point the brain would be 'too far gone' in it's assimilation/accomodation self- identify reconstruction as would be observed in a strong refusal/denial to try to reassociate with their birth- sex gender attributes.

(in reply to Awareness)
Profile   Post #: 130
RE: Hjernevask - 10/26/2016 3:24:13 PM   
vincentML


Posts: 9980
Joined: 10/31/2009
Status: offline
quote:

If this were true, it would suggest a type of treatment to help the person identify any resentment (for lack of a better word) against their birth biological sex and construct a healthy view of it.

Reads like . . . the sort of comments made by Christian fundamentalists about homosexuals, doesn't it? Not suggesting any malice on your part. Just noting the similar medical model.

Currently, I take it, treatment is given to help the individuals feel more comfortable with their discord and to alleviate any depression or anxiety, which apparently is considerable occurring in 71% of young people who are affected.

_____________________________

vML

Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter. ~ MLK Jr.

(in reply to tamaka)
Profile   Post #: 131
RE: Hjernevask - 10/26/2016 3:33:14 PM   
tamaka


Posts: 5079
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

If this were true, it would suggest a type of treatment to help the person identify any resentment (for lack of a better word) against their birth biological sex and construct a healthy view of it.

Reads like . . . the sort of comments made by Christian fundamentalists about homosexuals, doesn't it? Not suggesting any malice on your part. Just noting the similar medical model.

Currently, I take it, treatment is given to help the individuals feel more comfortable with their discord and to alleviate any depression or anxiety, which apparently is considerable occurring in 71% of young people who are affected.


Yes i know it sounds like that but i'm not coming from that perspective at all. I would just think you are somewhat doing them a disservice to at least not offer that line of treatment as exploratory therapy.

(in reply to vincentML)
Profile   Post #: 132
RE: Hjernevask - 10/26/2016 3:46:22 PM   
PeonForHer


Posts: 19612
Joined: 9/27/2008
Status: offline
quote:

Yes. It is amusing and revealing to note that those who making the loudest noises about 'science' and how their particular opinion is 'science-based' and 'correct' while all others are ignorant/wrong are those whose posts embody the very opposite of the scientific approach


Awareness hasn't been to university, Tweakabelle. I hate to come over all politically-correct - but I think we should try to give him some leeway.


_____________________________

http://www.domme-chronicles.com


(in reply to tweakabelle)
Profile   Post #: 133
RE: Hjernevask - 10/26/2016 3:50:43 PM   
bounty44


Posts: 6374
Joined: 11/1/2014
Status: offline
there are professional people out there, surgeons and psychiatrists, who are not "Christian fundamentalists" who believe men are men and women are women and they should stay that way; that its a mistake to have men "become" women.

that said, its not enough to dismiss a particular school of thought simply because it comes from a "Christian fundamentalist" without actually critiquing the argument or position.

the difficulty with that is, most lefties or atheists will not bother to understand it first without demonizing or mischaracterizing it.

for my part, yes----if a guy thinks he's a woman trapped in a man's body, he's in need of mental health help, not cross dressing, hormones and a surgeon.

(in reply to tamaka)
Profile   Post #: 134
RE: Hjernevask - 10/26/2016 4:06:42 PM   
PeonForHer


Posts: 19612
Joined: 9/27/2008
Status: offline
quote:


that said, its not enough to dismiss a particular school of thought simply because it comes from a "Christian fundamentalist" without actually critiquing the argument or position.

the difficulty with that is, most lefties or atheists will not bother to understand it first without demonizing or mischaracterizing it.


The trouble is that a Christian fundamentalist view isn't worth arguing with, Bounty. It's utterly based on irrationality. It's the product of what various gibbering nutcases said, in their utter ignorance, two thousand years ago, immersed as they were in societies that were savage, nasty and basically abhorrent. From the point of view of a rationalist today it doesn't even deserve any respect, never mind any discussion, frankly.

I'm surprised that you'd take such an extremist position, to be honest.

_____________________________

http://www.domme-chronicles.com


(in reply to bounty44)
Profile   Post #: 135
RE: Hjernevask - 10/26/2016 4:12:38 PM   
dcnovice


Posts: 37282
Joined: 8/2/2006
Status: offline
FR

Not sure if this sheds much light on humans, but it was interesting.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2016/04/160418-lions-mating-africa-animals-science/

_____________________________

No matter how cynical you become,
it's never enough to keep up.

JANE WAGNER, THE SEARCH FOR SIGNS OF
INTELLIGENT LIFE IN THE UNIVERSE

(in reply to bounty44)
Profile   Post #: 136
RE: Hjernevask - 10/26/2016 4:15:13 PM   
tamaka


Posts: 5079
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

quote:


that said, its not enough to dismiss a particular school of thought simply because it comes from a "Christian fundamentalist" without actually critiquing the argument or position.

the difficulty with that is, most lefties or atheists will not bother to understand it first without demonizing or mischaracterizing it.


The trouble is that a Christian fundamentalist view isn't worth arguing with, Bounty. It's utterly based on irrationality. It's the product of what various gibbering nutcases said, in their utter ignorance, two thousand years ago, immersed as they were in societies that were savage, nasty and basically abhorrent. From the point of view of a rationalist today it doesn't even deserve any respect, never mind any discussion, frankly.

I'm surprised that you'd take such an extremist position, to be honest.


I think that a scientist doesn't care whether a Christian Fundamentalist (or any other religious pov) would agree or not. They would look at the merit of the idea itself (whether it could possibly be true) and would go about the business of further objective exploration of the idea.

(in reply to PeonForHer)
Profile   Post #: 137
RE: Hjernevask - 10/26/2016 4:25:04 PM   
PeonForHer


Posts: 19612
Joined: 9/27/2008
Status: offline
quote:

I think that a scientist doesn't care whether a Christian Fundamentalist (or any other religious pov) would agree or not. They would look at the merit of the idea itself (whether it could possibly be true) and would go about the business of further objective exploration of the idea.


Correct. But if it's announced as a Christian fundamentalist idea, that idea has got off to a very bad start. It's an idea, by definition, that is pre- or non- scientific. For any scientist, it would get about the same level of respect as any idea that might have cropped up in a fairy story. Unfortunately for Christian fundamentalists, only other Christian fundamentalists give their views any respect whatsoever.

I do think Christian fundamentalists should relinquish their extremist views on this as well as other matters, the better to move the debate along in a moderate and sensible fashion.


_____________________________

http://www.domme-chronicles.com


(in reply to tamaka)
Profile   Post #: 138
RE: Hjernevask - 10/26/2016 4:32:17 PM   
tamaka


Posts: 5079
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

FR

Not sure if this sheds much light on humans, but it was interesting.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2016/04/160418-lions-mating-africa-animals-science/


The comments following the article confirms they both have male genitals.

(in reply to dcnovice)
Profile   Post #: 139
RE: Hjernevask - 10/26/2016 4:32:47 PM   
Wayward5oul


Posts: 3314
Joined: 11/9/2014
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

FR

Not sure if this sheds much light on humans, but it was interesting.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2016/04/160418-lions-mating-africa-animals-science/

Yanno, I read something about maned lionesses not too long ago, how it was happening more and more, in whatever region they were discussing. First time I had ever heard about that.

BTW, I am still trying to wrap my head around this bit,
For instance, female spotted hyenas have enlarged clitorises called pseudo-phalluses—which look just like penises but are actually larger. These often erect phalluses allow the females to display dominance and maintain their matriarchal society.

(in reply to dcnovice)
Profile   Post #: 140
Page:   <<   < prev  5 6 [7] 8 9   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Hjernevask Page: <<   < prev  5 6 [7] 8 9   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.109