Are people born gay? Are people born in the "wrong body" and are people born straight? Why or why not?

Some of this is going over my head, "pro-nonbinary bias" for instance.

Just simply put, is there any scientific indication that there is a "gene" that moulds us to a specific sexuality?

That wasn't me.

That's me

>Are people born gay?
>are people born straight?
No. People are choose to love one gender and don't love another. It's like you chose XBOX but not Playstation.
There is clearly not a restriction what love or what not. Deep down it all depends on learned conditoned reflexes.

Some animals wants to fuck my leg. It's just a reflex.

Is this anything to back this up?

>"pro-nonbinary bias" for instance.

Well, university faculty is something like 90% democreat, probably at least 50% 'progressive'.

Those people, including me, are quick to agree with LGBTQ people but most of them with much more energy.

My point is that this evidence can only be recorded by psychologists... and psychologists are pretty liberal and 'progressive', given that they have to take a bunch of social bullshit classes.

Nothing wrong with that, but it does means they have a bias. They could potentially take any data and use it to say that being trans is natural.

You could believe them if you want, but I wouldn't. I will only believe the evidence if it comes from a conservative as fuck 50 year old republican guy because we know he has an anti-LGBTQ bias, so if he says it then it must be true as fuck.

>That wasn't me.
I know.

>Just simply put, is there any scientific indication that there is a "gene" that moulds us to a specific sexuality?

It is not a gene, but I've read that you can predict (not with 100% accuracy but close enough) if a person will be in the LGBTQ spectrum by measuring the 'chemical balance' (whatever the fuck that is) in the womb of the mother.

So google that and tell us if it can be trusted, I guess.

I honestly have no clue where to even begin on why "eating healthier" is not "more natural". I'll just give you the anecdotal fact that we didn't drink 2% milk in ye olden days, we drank extremely fatty milk straight from the cow's tits.

If that's too modern for you, then you're probably thinking about when we were figuring out what is safe to eat from connecting the dots of who survived the last meal.

Regardless, "natural" is an idiotic and meaningless word in a society that engineers and innovates every facet of their lives from food to shelter to sharing of information. But you somehow managed to make it even more meaningless, so congrats on that.

>chemical balance

Cool, this is what I was looking for. So, you're saying that we're not certain and the issue still needs a lot more research to be resolved completely?

I would define natural in the context of this thread as something you are genetically or neurologically predisposed to do.

Maybe my chocolate example was shit, whatever.

OP is asking if being LGBTQ is something some people are genetically predisposed to do.

It is the 'is it a choice? debate and even though I lean towards the 'it is not a choice' camp, I cannot trust any evidence because it is coming from progressives and they have a pro-LGBTQ bias.

ask biologists and psychologists - not a chad hieroglyphics decoding image board

>So, you're saying that we're not certain and the issue still needs a lot more research to be resolved completely?

It definitely needs more research and fuckton of peer review.

But we are pretty close, I conjecture that being LGBTQ is natural, so I'm just waiting for really strong evidence.

Like, if biologists and psychologists come up with a model to predict if someone will be gay, trans, a-gender, bi-gender, etc. with 99.9% accuracy then that will be absolute proof. That will be overwhelming proof and not even the most conservative could oppose it.

I recognize what the thread is about. The analogy was pretty much the entirety of your argument, so yes I focused on it.

I don't really understand how you can lean towards not a choice but stand against even neurological predisposition. Regardless, I don't have evidence for either side (let alone evidence you cannot blindly dismiss because it wasn't published by a fundamentalist grumbling that data is more important than personal bias -- a likely occurrence), I just found your analogy to be frustratingly bad.

>not even the most conservative could oppose it.
Boy, you haven't been around ultra-conservative stupidity much have you?

The human race is meant to reproduce in order to survive. You are not able to reproduce as a faggot, therefore being gay is unnatural.

Hey, I'm not that guy. I think there's a neurological predisposition. But I also think that craving is a direct correlation to that data.

It may be that the evidence proves babies choose sexuality, perhaps based on whether they love the father or mother more, or whatever other social factors factor in. This clinging, then creates the framework for the chemicals. It would thusly be right to say, sexuality is programmed.
But I don't know that.

Meaning comes from language, which is an abstraction of emergence within the world. It is not that producing offspring is meaningful, but surviving by being relevant or diverse in thought and caricature is necessary. That is not the meaning of the human race, survival breeds meaning, does not necessarily mean the inverse argument is true. You can say the converse is true however, assuming my arguments are true (as we all learned in high school). Otherwise, prove it.

Just because a behavior doesn't directly lead to conception that doesn't mean it doesn't have a use in proliferation of the species. Menopause seems counter-intuitive but it allows for infertile grandparents to assist in childcare.

Common sense.
You need also learn the basics of physiology youtube.com/watch?v=hhqumfpxuzI

But how foolish the chooser stands in contrast to the magnitude of the choice they make. This all starts too early.

>Common sense.

If you hold a rock to the height of your chest and then let go off it, will it go up or down?

Common sense will tell you that it will go down, but how can you be sure?

What if we had no predictive mathematical model for motion? Then who knows, one day the rock will go up, reach escape velocity, and crash into the sun.

So until you people come up with a mathematical predictive model for human sexuality then your idea of 'common sense' is as good as any other's.

What if someone says that common sense is that 'duh , it is a choice!'.

Can you contradict him? Not without a predictive model. So stop acting like you know more than the average person.

Do you unironically believe that humans are born with prescripted behavior that they can't overcome or what? Literally everything is the consequences of your own choices in the past.

>Do you unironically believe that humans are born with prescripted behavior that they can't overcome or what?
You seem to be implying exactly that by saying you can only be homosexual by deviating from the supposed pre-ordained natural state of heterosexuality. Why would the concept of choosing homosexuality exist if you didn't think that heterosexuality was already hardcoded into human behavior? Unless you are in fact implying that heterosexuals choose their attractions as well, which is a concept that I'll admit that I haven't heard argued before.

It's a choice in the sense that not eating is a choice. Your behavior is ultimately up to you but the underlying urge is not a conscious choice. Of course its not a perfect comparison because not having sex won't kill you, but the point still stands.

There are chaste heterosexuals that never have sex but that doenst mean they're not heterosexual. They don't decide to not have sexual attraction, they decide to not act on the attractions they have.

So yes, homosexuality is a "choice" in that you're choosing to have sex with your own gender as opposed to the opposite one, but why would you have sex with someone you're not attracted to?

>in my opinion it is not natural, it is just a craving

Much like your craving for cock gobbling?

The DNA for building a person is complex.
It contains all the information to create both a male and female, but how people develop depends not on the DNA alone, but on multiple factors.
So people can have the brain structure of one gender while having the genitalia structure of another gender.
Environment can also increase or decrease the development of a male, female or spectrum brain.

Sorry, but DNA isn't concerned about conformity; in fact DNA and evolution is kind of against conformity. That's kind of what defines evolution.

trans-gender people are mentally ill.

take for instance this user

>Argument from Stone Fallacy
>Argument from Exception/Instance
>Argument from Assertion Fallacy
>Reciting Counter Evidence [Science]
Why don't you prove it. Empirically.

*Rejecting [autocorrect]

Its not so much for being bisexual (which I know was very common in Ancient Greece) but the fact that they are going against our pre-programmed reproductive tendencies and not screwing women at all, and even not finding them sexuially attractive which is the part I find abnormal, thus worthy or a separate concept or category.

>I conjecture that being LGBTQ is natural

being a sociopath is natural, which is why these people exist. They aren't all trained by intelligence agencies or such they're under us and we don't really know why - nature.

menopause is not intentional. Evolution had no way to influence what happens in old age since it's past its selection process, what you get is the continuation of trends that were started

...

You don't need to be infertile to assist in childcare. youngsters that haven't entered the job world have also often helped with raising their siblings. The kind of reasoning in the initial post is deductive feel-good talk to make those who lost vitality feel better.

Ok, you've just interjected a CRAPLOAD of statements and have still not proven anything.
Idiot, "coming up with shit" and then just resting on it is called "circular logic" which IS ALWAYS WRONG.
"Citation Needed" mean you must provide access to studies that have EMPIRICALLY PROVEN what they fuck you're saying.
Otherwise you're just making shit up and sticking to it.

gay uncle theory is made up bullshit.

you were bothered about the lack of citations in the menopause comment though.

>In rare cases, a woman's ovaries stop working at a very early age, ranging anywhere from the age of puberty to age 40. This is known as premature ovarian failure (POF; see below). Spontaneous premature ovarian failure affects 1% of women by age 40, and 0.1% of women by age 30.

and this is a well-known cause of menopause.

Aging of the ovaries
>Impaired DNA repair mechanisms may contribute to earlier depletion of the ovarian reserve during aging.[43] As women age, double-strand breaks accumulate in the DNA of their primordial follicles.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Menopause

Most of what you read indicates that it is indeed an imperfection, and not intentional.

>So yes, homosexuality is a "choice" in that you're choosing to have sex with your own gender as opposed to the opposite one, but why would you have sex with someone you're not attracted to?
Yes, you wouldn't have sex with someone you're not attracted to like you're not eating a food you don't like. No one shouldn't insist you to do what you don't like. But saying that you are born that way is a mistake.

>gay uncle theory is made up bullshit.
What the hell are you talking about?
You just pulled that out of nowhere.

>you were bothered about the lack of citations in the menopause comment though.
Yeah, because all claims require evidence.

>In rare cases, a woman's ovaries stop working at a very early age, ranging anywhere from the age of puberty to age 40. This is known as premature ovarian failure (POF; see below). Spontaneous premature ovarian failure affects 1% of women by age 40, and 0.1% of women by age 30.

That doesn't support anything you were rambling on about in regards to evolution, or what people are or are not supposed to be

The rest also doesn't support your weird social beliefs.

I don't think you understand how this works.
When people ask for citations, then mean citations to back up your claims.

Instead you posted tangentially related topics, none however that address your claims in any way shape or form.

How does any of what you posted point to how women are supposed to behavior or if women are not supposed to have menopause.

If women were not supposed to have menopause, then they wouldn't be occurring naturally.

It seems to me you're a person with low IQ that has mommy issues and you're raging on about how your mommy annoys you, and that you don't like it so you cry on here about it.

No, they inherit the genes of their fathers, who were not gay. Homosexuality is 99% environmental. Reproduction is big deal in nature.

>99%
>Reproduction is a big deal in nature
Actually, nature doesn't care if anything survives.
This shit all happened completely by chance, you idiot. Evolution also happened by chance.
It's been proven that we have the DNA for both male and female in ALL of us, and that someone can have a female brain while they have a male body, and over time they evolved to be attracted to others with the same condition.

It has also been proven there is a spectrum.
To deny the spectrum is to deny ALL of evolution.

Nature doesn't "care" if ALL species go extinct.
There is no "care"... there is "happen to survive, or happen to not survive".

Teleology is nonsense.

is it possible that genetic mutation will cause me be sexually attracted to inanimate objext like my chair?

Herp derp, no one said nature cares, fedora retard

>t's been proven that we have the DNA for both male and female in ALL of us
This retard. :^)

Who cares?
like what said, as long as they are a productive member of society then there is nothing wrong with them.

All mammals are r-strategy, so any characteristic that doesn't maximize the number of children a human has is maladaptive and therefore morally wrong.

It's a combination of genetics, chemicals during fetal development, and childhood experiences.

It's been shown that men who have a lot of older brothers are more likely to be gay. This could be caused by changes in the chemicals in the womb due to the previous male fetuses.

However, it's also been shown that women who have a lot of younger sisters are more likely to be lesbian. This would have to be just be a childhood experience cause, but it doesn't necessarily take away from a possible fetal hormonal hypothesis for men described above.

Also, male victims of gay pedophilia are more likely to identify as gay later in life.

I know you are being stupid but technically yes

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Object_sexuality

I have my doubts that gay men aren't attracted to women.

Most mammals exhibiting r-strategist criteria, humans exhibit k-strategist

cs.montana.edu/webworks/projects/stevesbook/contents/chapters/chapter002/section004/blue/page003.html

... but that would be obvious to anyone who reviewed the criteria instead of looking it up on wiki, right?

Also, there's no direct correlation between reproductive pattern and sexual bahavior. Attempting to make one would be an oversimplification for the simple-minded, like rounding gravitational acceleration to 9.

Seems like you're speaking from personal experience (aside from a weak attempt at self-bumping this poor excuse for a troll thread)

Believe me I wish I was just bisexual. I would choose to pursue the normal heterosexual desires and ignore the same sex attractions. It would be an easy choice.
It's so stupid how all the ex-gay therapies out there are just about supressing SSA when the real problem is that I feel nothing for women.

> i'm sure that's the sort of thing that normally gets you attention at sunday school ... but we don't care, dramatic the edgehog