Chromosomal variation is only one of a number of potential causes for transsexuality. In fact it might not even be a cause, but simply something seen in accompaniment with it. Or it mighty even be that chromosomal variation rarely has to do with transsexuality in the conventional sense; individuals with inter sexed physicality often have a more fluid sexuality than others. At least if I can trust my source on that, but given that the concept of sexual fluidity hails back to a time when psychoanalysis was the dominant theory of human consciousness and the more drastic suggestions of the theory in this area have since been disproven, that may not be the case.
I remember studying that in Biology. Generally people with extra chromosomes don't know it. They don't act any different from anyone else. There is nothing off about them. None of them want to be the opposite sex. They are completely normal except for the extra chromosome. The only thing extra chromosomes do is cause sterility.
I remember studying that in Biology. Generally people with extra chromosomes don't know it. They don't act any different from anyone else. There is nothing off about them. None of them want to be the opposite sex. They are completely normal except for the extra chromosome. The only thing extra chromosomes do is cause sterility.
Apparently you didn't learn enough on this topic, and extended what you do know further than it should have gone.
What you described is only the case SOMETIMES. In other cases, extra/not enough sex chromosomes can cause major problems that are highly noticable.
Also, I resent that you said "none" of them want to be the opposite sex. Which is untrue in any case, even if what you said is right. I assume that what you meant is, that they don't have a higher probability than average to be transexual.
C is for Charisma, it's why people think I'm great! I make my friends all laugh and smile and never want to hate!
Why should the child have a say-so based on the sexual orientation of the parents any more or less than they should -already- have a say-so because it is them being adopted?
There's nothing a child hates more than being or feeling controlled. It often leads to suicidal thoughts and almost always developes a deep hatrid of the parent. I want nothing more in life than my father dead, if that says enough.
Originally posted by sonic-fast-fingers
can someone clarrify what QFT means my friend told me its quit ****ing talking, but im not 100 percent sure
Originally posted by Synthlight
I need a car that drives itself completely automated and I want it for free and it needs infinite gas mileage.
There's nothing a child hates more than being or feeling controlled. It often leads to suicidal thoughts and almost always developes a deep hatrid of the parent. I want nothing more in life than my father dead, if that says enough.
Well I'm sad for you that you feel that way, but what does that have to do with the situation at hand, or the statement of mine that you quoted?
The law of evolution states that environmental pressures determine what genes are passed on, and thus the gene pool in a given population is very gradually effected towards what genetic populations are best adapted environmentally. Now, insects are unequivocally the most successful creatures on earth. Does that make it immoral to be human? Of course not, that's absurd. Evolution states how certain functions of reproduction work, it doesn't make it a moral requirement for anyone or anything to reproduce.
I'm pretty sure that there isn't one religion that all homosexuals subscribe to.
QFE, even if in CT.
I, myself, am a deist, but I have been that way my entire life, despite being 'raised' in a heavily Christian/creationist household. I do believe in evolution, and I don't believe that everything from the bible needs to be taken so seriously, as if it were absolute fact of what happened. Of course, I stopped going to church when I was 8.
Also, hayate, a bi friend of mine is Unitarian and a lesbian friend of mine is a Protestant. A gay guy I don't particularly enjoy the company of is an atheist.
He's suggesting Darwinian theory is equivalent to a religion. He's also somehow under the impression that the theory states reproduction is somehow a requisite for morality, which is the part I see the least sense in. Not that the whole post was anything other than nonsensical.
Comment