Male and Female Behavior Biologically Determined

[rangerrebew]

Male and Female Behavior Biologically Determined
January 23, 2017

Male and female behavioral patterns are biological in origin and the “gender neutral” fad is futile against this reality, Debra W. Soh, a sexual neuroscientist at York University in Toronto and writer for the Globe and Mail, Harpers, the Wall Street Journal, Scientific American, the L. A. Times, and Playboy magazine, has said.

In an article published by the L.A. Times—an adventurous newspaper which often breaks ranks with the controlled media—Soh said that “In steadfast pursuit of gender equality and to promote nonconformity,” it had become popular to start “raising young children in a gender-neutral way.”

http://newobserveronline.com/male-female-behavior-biologically-determined/

[rangerrebew]

This must be satire!!  We all know by now from Imam Obama and his liberal sycophants  (or is it psychophants) all a person has to do to be the other sex is think they want to be.  This SCIENCE ARTICLE, which liberals would ignore, of course, is saying men can't be women and women can't be men because their behaviors are inherent in the original sex.  Imagine that.

[Fishrrman]

Some truths are so self-evident that it's pointless to write about them… ;)

[The_Reader_David]

This is one aspect of the left's enthusiasms that amuses me.  They use the Darwinian theory of evolution (do remember that means a theory to explain the fact of evolution -- the fact that allele frequencies change over time, which is the definition of biological evolution) as an anti-Christian shibboleth, but don't really believe in the Darwinian account of human origins any more than a six-day literalist Baptist preacher from Tennessee does.  What they really believe is Jean-Jacques Rousseau's account of human origins -- the "tabula rasa" in which where is no actual fixed human nature, only what society has "written" on us.  Otherwise they would not spend so much time defending Darwinian dead-ends like homoeroticism, "transgenderism" and the interchangeability of men and women.

I'd like to see reporters ask Democrat candidates for office whether they believe in Darwinian evolution, then when they say "yes," confront them with the absurdity of a lot of their policy prescriptions that depend for their coherence on the rejection of any notion of fixed human nature.  In truth as it bears on public policy, taking seriously the account of the Fall in Genesis or taking seriously the account of human origins offered by neo-Darwinism, both provide the requirement for policy to actually deal with human nature (and from the limited point of view of public policy, the fallen image of God given over to animal passions or the hairless ape who has attained reason sufficient to formulate quantum mechanics look awfully similar when compared the left's notion of humanity as a mass of victims of social conditioning who could be perfected if only laws and mores were changed to whatever the latest enthusiasm of the left happens to be.)

[Sanguine]

NO WAY!!!

Yes, much of it is.

[Oceander]

This is one aspect of the left's enthusiasms that amuses me.  They use the Darwinian theory of evolution (do remember that means a theory to explain the fact of evolution -- the fact that allele frequencies change over time, which is the definition of biological evolution) as an anti-Christian shibboleth, but don't really believe in the Darwinian account of human origins any more than a six-day literalist Baptist preacher from Tennessee does.  What they really believe is Jean-Jacques Rousseau's account of human origins -- the "tabula rasa" in which where is no actual fixed human nature, only what society has "written" on us.  Otherwise they would not spend so much time defending Darwinian dead-ends like homoeroticism, "transgenderism" and the interchangeability of men and women.

I'd like to see reporters ask Democrat candidates for office whether they believe in Darwinian evolution, then when they say "yes," confront them with the absurdity of a lot of their policy prescriptions that depend for their coherence on the rejection of any notion of fixed human nature.  In truth as it bears on public policy, taking seriously the account of the Fall in Genesis or taking seriously the account of human origins offered by neo-Darwinism, both provide the requirement for policy to actually deal with human nature (and from the limited point of view of public policy, the fallen image of God given over to animal passions or the hairless ape who has attained reason sufficient to formulate quantum mechanics look awfully similar when compared the left's notion of humanity as a mass of victims of social conditioning who could be perfected if only laws and mores were changed to whatever the latest enthusiasm of the left happens to be.)

Actually, other species also engage in homoerotic behavior to one degree or another, so it must have some evolutionary value. 

[The_Reader_David]

Actually, other species also engage in homoerotic behavior to one degree or another, so it must have some evolutionary value.

Only if you subscribe to the version of evolutionary theory that Steven Jay Gould derides as "just so stories".  (cf. Gould, The Spandrels of San Marco and the Panglossian Paradigm).

[Oceander]

Only if you subscribe to the version of evolutionary theory that Steven Jay Gould derides as "just so stories".  (cf. Gould, The Spandrels of San Marco and the Panglossian Paradigm).

Nope.  All I need to rely upon is the basic premises that (a) most animals are not moral agents in the sense that is ascribed to humans (especially by religions such as Christianity) and therefore are not going to choose evil for the sake of evil, and (b) if something has a negative effect on survivability, then it will be bred out of the species in question.

Based on premise (a), I can conclude that animals are not going to engage in homoerotic behavior as a result of moral choices (i.e., they won't choose an "evil" action because it's "evil") and therefore if they do engage in it they must be doing so for other reasons.  Based on premise (b) I can conclude that homoerotic behavior in other animals cannot be affirmatively bad for survivability for the simple reason that it hasn't been bred out of those species through natural selection.

[Cyber Liberty]

Actually, other species also engage in homoerotic behavior to one degree or another, so it must have some evolutionary value.

Maybe it's to winnow and eliminate unattractive members of the species?

[Sanguine]

Or, perhaps we are equating some normal behaviors that serve some purposes in the animal world with human homosexual behaviors when they aren't necessarily the same thing?

[rangerrebew]

If liberals subscribe to the Darwinian theory, why do they support welfare when survival is to go to the fittest?  The weaklings who can't fend for themselves should be eliminated.

[The_Reader_David]

Nope.  All I need to rely upon is the basic premises that (a) most animals are not moral agents in the sense that is ascribed to humans (especially by religions such as Christianity) and therefore are not going to choose evil for the sake of evil, and (b) if something has a negative effect on survivability, then it will be bred out of the species in question.

Based on premise (a), I can conclude that animals are not going to engage in homoerotic behavior as a result of moral choices (i.e., they won't choose an "evil" action because it's "evil") and therefore if they do engage in it they must be doing so for other reasons.  Based on premise (b) I can conclude that homoerotic behavior in other animals cannot be affirmatively bad for survivability for the simple reason that it hasn't been bred out of those species through natural selection.

But you cannot conclude that homoerotic behavior must have an evolutionary purpose, as you asserted.  It may well be a "spandrel", something that's just there because two other things that are adaptive are there (e.g. sexual reproduction and dominance behavior, each of which is adaptive, while mounting the other male is not).  Gould proposes that sleep has an adaptive function, consciousness has an adaptive function, and when the two are present together they result in dreams -- consciousness during sleep -- which has no adaptive function.  The "just so stories" version of evolutionary theory would make up an adaptive function for dreams to explain them. 

[Oceander]

But you cannot conclude that homoerotic behavior must have an evolutionary purpose, as you asserted.  It may well be a "spandrel", something that's just there because two other things that are adaptive are there (e.g. sexual reproduction and dominance behavior, each of which is adaptive, while mounting the other male is not).  Gould proposes that sleep has an adaptive function, consciousness has an adaptive function, and when the two are present together they result in dreams -- consciousness during sleep -- which has no adaptive function.  The "just so stories" version of evolutionary theory would make up an adaptive function for dreams to explain them. 

I don't have to conclude that it has affirmative value - fine - but you are forced to conclude that it is not an affirmative negative either - but I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for you to admit the obvious.  And that essentially undercuts the claim that it is an affirmative evil. It's at most a distraction that some people like and some don't.  And it's disingenuous, or ignorant, for those who do not like it to falsely claim the moral high ground to impose their subjective preferences on people who disagree with them. 

[The_Reader_David]

Read what I wrote.  I was not making any moral statements, other than against the hypocrisy of using Darwinism as a shibboleth and then acting as if Rousseau gave the definitive account of human nature.  The fact that something hasn't been bred out is hardly an argument for its adaptiveness (Tay Sachs and Thalassaemia spring readily to mind), so I will repeat the claim you seem to be arguing against with those as an analogy:  the left spends a great deal of time defending evolutionary dead-ends like homoeroticism and "transgenderism", very odd for people for whom "belief in evolution" is supposedly a touchstone of their worldview.  (Surely you admit that the delusion one is the opposite sex, so dearly held that one has oneself rendered sterile in the attempt to make one's body into a simulacrum of the opposite sex, is an evolutionary dead end.)