No, what was found relating to Fraternal Birth Order wasn't probably not related to testosterone. It was heightened antibodies to some protein.
The Fraternal Birth Order effect is separate and stronger than prenatal testosterone.
Five minutes of hate news
- Thread starter PsihoKekec
- Start date
The Fraternal Birth Order effect is separate and stronger than prenatal testosterone.
TheRejectionist
TheRejectionist
So it's a bad idea to have more than one son?
SoliFortissimi
Well-known member
Yep. One son and one daughter is the best.
Evolutionarily? Two sons are suboptimal vs the alternative of having a son and a daughter. There's rapidly diminishing marginal returns to additional sons. It's much less valuable than a daughter at that point. You only need one male child to go and spread the genes among many females, so evolution has adapted to this. But in general, having as many kids as possible to support is evolutionarily better.
Morally, no. Also, it isn't certain, but basically each son is more likely to be gay than the son before. It's also a son-per-mother effect, not a son-per-father effect, so if you have kids by different women, there's no effect.
All this means is that gay behavior is natural. It doesn't make it moral or immoral (there's a lot of natural behavior that is one or the other). The key thing is that this, looking at it logically, is actually an argument against trans stuff, because that doesn't appear in nature (no, the clownfish stuff doesn't count, as there's no biological analogy for humans). Note, I even support adult transition, but I'm also capable of seeing arguments against my own positions.
Seriously, conservatives could use this argument fairly well, but they don't want to because 'gays are bad' or some bullshit. Again, I'd point out that fighting every battle offered is a great way to lose a war. You fight battles where you have advantages or you need to fight them. Not every single one offered.
King Arts
Well-known member
Also it doesn’t answer the question about twins if one twin is gay and the other isn’t. That disproves the assertion that it’s something in the womb.
What's best changes with time, in times of danger you want lots of children so that at least some will survive.
DarthOne
☦️
AnimalNoodles
Well-known member
The pendulum grows heavier.
Tick-toc-tick-toc.
Pendulum is a cope. Its not a pendulum, its a ratchet, and it will tighten and tighten until it breaks.
... Sure, look up what was found in studies, and just ignore the parts you don't like, so it becomes something you do like. Either just ignore the study completely, or at least make an attempt to follow what it says, instead of just inserting your beliefs into it. I know there's bad science, but what you did is the worst of both worlds.
mrttao
Well-known member
Well, IIRC allegedly twins show a % increase in the odds of being gay.
like. if 1% for normal pop then 2% for a twin of a gay person.
of course that was from way back in the day that the gay % was only 1%. before mass child grooming raised that figure to 40%.
there might be some slight genetic predisposition.
But it is almost entirely nurture.
studies done under the supervision of the liberal inquisition.
there is a reason why the vast majority of studies cannot be replicated, not even by the people who originally wrote them.
we live in an era of priests who wear a scientist costume
DarthOne
☦️
It's probably more of a bad idea to not have more kids (if you want and can support them) due to marginal statistics stating the more X kids you have, the greater the chance they catch the gays. Without looking at the studies, I'm assuming any difference is probably pretty small and being concerned about every study out there, regardless of veracity, would probably negatively impact ones life far worse. There's so many studies out there that one can potentially intake, you'd probably go mad giving them all significant influence in your life.
mrttao
Well-known member
Fair, I apologize.
Cult guru's wearing scientist costumes.
Ding! Ding! Ding!
We have a winner!
You missed my point. You can either toss a study entirely, or you can accept it. What you can't do is look at a study, add your own opinion on what they should have found even though they didn't find it, then claim that as evidence for your position. A study is either done wrongly for whatever reason (and thus shouldn't be used for evidence) or it's done correctly. If you want to claim the study is done by priests and bunk, sure, but then you can't simultaneously claim that Fraternal Birth Order is caused by a decrease in testosterone if you don't accept that the studies that found that Fraternal Birth Order causes a higher incidence of gayness.
Tl;dr: pick one, not both.
mrttao
Well-known member
1. You can absolutely look at the facts from a study and then draw different conclusions than the authors of the study did.
A perfect example of this is a recent study which had people living off of only nestle powetboost TM. a concoction of 60% sugar and starch, 20% fat, and 20% protein (not including the water). The study concluded that... "protein is unhealthy".
I did not dispute their factual observations (although they are a bit sus due to being gathered by clear hacks). but dispute their conclusions.
2. I did not go around cherry picking facts from studies on the subject.
I merely stated that it is "suspecious".
I currently am uncertain whether it is legit or not and will remain uncertain about it unless and until I perform much more research on the subject. Which frankly I don't have the time to do at the moment.
I believe I was clear and explicit in my communication that I am merely suspicious of the content of said study. Rather than saying explicitly which is fact and which is fiction.
I did however clarify a few points where I think you misremembered.
Specifically, IIRC you are incorrectly remembering and the studies did not claim "3rd sons are born gay".
Rather IIRC the studies claimed "subsequent male sons have lowered prenatal male hormones which results in a small % increase of homosexuality once they grow up". Which some people then interpreted to mean "3rd son's born gay"
3. A small but important distinction.
I did not say that the specific author of specific studies of being woke priests in a scientist costume. I did not sufficiently investigate the individual authors.
I said the study was published under the control of woke inqusitors / woke priests wearing scientist costume.
Take a look at Stalin's USSR.
Stalin let most sciences flourish but had a chip on his shoulder for biology.
He denied genetics as "racist nazi propaganda" and executed thousands of biologists who believed in genetics.
And promoted a conman called trofim lysenko who spouted utter nonsense.
My point was that currently in the western world we live under something similar to Lysenkoism.
Very similar actually because we too deny various sciences as "racist nazi propaganda".
Anyone who tries to publish a wrongthink study (for example, something that goes against the official LGBTQP narrative) will find himself homeless in the USA or in prison (for hatespeech) in any western country that isn't USA.
The remaining scientists are either:
A. grossly misinformed due to faulty education under woke inquisition control
B. actively complicit members of the woke cult
C. keeping their head down and skirting the noose. trying to do as much good as they can without breaking too big a taboo.
All pro LGBTQP "studies" published in any country under the woke of the woke cult are thus immediately tainted by suspicion.
And must be replicated by countries free from woke cult.
Sure, you could. But that's not what happened here. New facts without evidence were introduced. That's my issue. You can toss a studies evidence, but just adding new evidence without a study backing it, because you think the evidence fits, is bad science (despite scientists doing it a ton).
I'm not addressing your arguments here, more @DarthOne , who made a logical error. I quoted you because you defended Darth's point, which made this error.
Somewhat agree here. My recollection of the study was initially wrong in my first post, before I relooked it up. I had claimed off hand that 3rd sons were more likely to be gay. It turns out instead it was each subsequent son was significantly more likely to be gay than the one before (if the first kid is gay at a 2% rate, then the next would have a 3% chance of being gay, and a third son a ~5% chance etc, if the increase is ~50% per son. Obviously ball park and example figures).
This I agree with, but there are ways to gather solid info from dubious sources. One key way is to look for information found prior to their complete capture, the earlier data tends to be more reliable in this respect (though sometimes less reliable in other things, but all else equal, older study is better).
That's something the Fraternal Birth Order stuff has going for it: there's evidence for it from the 50s and it was studied in the 90s.
Another is stuff that contradicts what they want to be true. They (initially) wanted there to be a gay gene. That Fraternal Birth Order doesn't present this is an issue for the ideologically captured scientist, but not much of an issue, as it's close enough.
But now, in a more modern sense (think 2015 on), that it's not a choice is an issue for an ideologue. They want sexuality to be a social construct, but it doesn't appear to be. Why? Because they want to shame people who won't sleep with trans people. They hate anything that reeks of biology working as intended, such as this.
Pointing out that there's actual biological reasons behind people being immutably gay, and the sheer lack of evidence for trans stuff, is telling, IMO.
Agree.Just like marxism become religion after they take power,lgbt,wokism and climatism become religions in states where they rule now.
SoliFortissimi
Well-known member
They are quite literally fighting God Himself.
mrttao
Well-known member
what new evidence was introduced?