> The point is to see that there is certain logic behind my statement that is worth discussion
Not really, no, given that it's based on a premise ("traits that harm a specific individual's chances of reproduction can't be selected for by evolution") that's obviously false as soon as you take half a second to look at eusocial animals.
The point was to consider the validity of such a statement as something worth considering. What you say is technically true but you made it kind of pedantic here and steered away from the heart of my point.
Let me reform it to fit with your logic: "Homosexuality as a trait is not selected for by evolution for humans."
There this statement is not definitively false. There is a realistic possibility that it's true.
Also please see my other reply in this thread for a more nuanced take on my point, which has nothing to do homosexuality (that was just an example).
The context, though, is that the assertion you are saying is worth consideration (homosexuality cannot be selected for and is therefore a disorder) was the orthodox scientific position not too long ago, was then thoroughly debated, debunked, and only now is summarily rejected.
This does not reflect a bias, but instead reflects that there is very little value in revisiting an exhausted question without bringing more information to the table.
It's not rejected. Homosexuality is rejected as a medical "disorder" by the medical establishment. However that's entirely different from what the anthropological and biological community thinks about the origins of homosexuality. It may not be a "disorder" but no one is sure whether it's biologically "normal."
Right now the real conclusion is inconclusive as shown in the research study above. It is actually not an exhausted question to people in this area of research.
It is only exhaustive for people outside of academia trying to paint a picture of the biological world according to a social ideal rather then a scientific truth.
> It may not be a "disorder" but no one is sure whether it's biologically "normal."
This is not a legitimate question to be answered and therefore has no scientific or research merit, so stop dragging biologists into it. How do you define “normal”? Once you have picked a suitable definition, what do you intend do to with that information?
Your linked article asks the questions about the genetic origins of homosexuality, which has fuckall to do with your own invented concept of “normal” or “disorder”.
Your whole premise is bollocks. You’re convinced that you have some enlightened thought exercise here but you really need to get your head out of your own ass. We get what you’re trying to say - but it’s too stupid to argue against.
>This is not a legitimate question to be answered and therefore has no scientific or research merit, so stop dragging biologists into it.
Stop dragging biologists when a biologist was attached to the research study I sent you? Makes no sense.
>Your linked article asks the questions about the genetic origins of homosexuality, which has fuckall to do with your own invented concept of “normal” or “disorder”.
All conceptions of the terms "disorder" and "normal" are invented concepts and highly opinionated. Humanity at one point called Homosexuality a disease and at another time they called it normal. That is simply a choice of definition.
Regardless of the semantic pedantry you're trying to bring up here, you know what I fuckall mean by the terms. If homosexuality is proven to have no genetic basis and is only a recent phenomenon, then it is not biologically normal. Simple.
>Your whole premise is bollocks. You’re convinced that you have some enlightened thought exercise here but you really need to get your head out of your own ass. We get what you’re trying to say - but it’s too stupid to argue against.
You know it's actually not MY premise. It's well established that this is inconclusive in academia.
Why the hell do you think the genetic origins of homosexuality was researched at all if it was definitively considered to be normal and genetic? The problem is INCONCLUSIVE hence the research study.
You need to realize you are not arguing with me. You are arguing with established opinions in academia.
The fact that you're a doctor makes me question the scientific neutrality of doctors in the field. Are all of them as biased and emotional as you?
Not really, no, given that it's based on a premise ("traits that harm a specific individual's chances of reproduction can't be selected for by evolution") that's obviously false as soon as you take half a second to look at eusocial animals.