feminsts = gay men

[Ree]

the truth about feminists........a regular human gets two doses of testosterone in their life....dose one when they are 6 months old in the womb.....dose 2 when they reach puberty......a male that misses or gets an underdose at any of these doses may fail to be attracted to women,they may be asexual or homosexual.......i know what your thinking.....thats all very well and good raphoni(kajoni)...but what does it have to do with feminists?.....well a woman who gets an overdose of testosterone will than exhibit very masculine tendencies.....they will not be subservient and social conformists,plus most noticeably they will view females as a tribe and so instead of concentrating on how they can be attractive to men,they will concentrate on how they can prevent their tribe from being opresed........the feminist is a biological anomaly...same as the homosexual....with one very big difference....the empathy gap......a homosexual know that they are abnormal...a homosexual is fully aware that normal males are not attracted to other males.....a feminist however may not be aware that a majority of females like male attention,that they like being dominated,being led,being dependent..and so a feminist may be baffled as to why yyoung girls are wearing shitloads of makeup and going to clubs every weekend,and dancing provocatively and posting selfies and obssesing over likes and dominating the waitresing and hostess and secretarial fields while shunning science and engineering...they will be baffled as to why evryone like sex but only women are prostitutes.....they will wonder why over 80 percent of managers are men......they will be baffled as to why women outnumber men yyet in most democracies men will dominate leadership positions...they will then incorrectly blame this on a male conspiracy......not realising that their fellow females are not programmed like them.....evoloution favors whatever traits encourage reproduction.... looking at males as competition is not such a trait....look at that girl on instagram with flower filters on her hair in ig typing sasa using x....that is what a female looks like....look at that woman with short hair and a long skirt and 2 phds loudlyy proclaiming how she would never suck a dick and the porn industry is disrespectful to women...that is a biological anomaly

 

[Richard]

Eh, things get a little dicey when you try to mix biology with social science.

Biologically, our sexes are determined before the 3-week mark. In the embryo, humans have a period of sexual indifference - testosterone activates the SRY gene so our gonads develop into testes as men, and in the absence of a Y chromosome/testosterone, the gonads develop into ovaries.

That being said, testosterone only plays a small role in partner preference. The SDN (sexually dymorphic nuclei) is responsible for partner preference, and, while testosterone can influence the size of the SDN, it isn't the only factor so "missing" a dose of testosterone doesn't predispose someone to being sexually ambiguous. Numerous theories have been put out on human sexuality and it's roots in hormone exposure but none have been fruitful - all the theories from "homosexuality as hyper-masculine" to "homosexuality as hypo-masculine" have been debunked. So, I'm not confident saying that hormones/biology are related to the feminist issue.

Feminism is a social issue and I don't see any link to anything biologically-related, which is a point I felt you were maybe making. Anyway, I felt the gist of your post was on how hormones/biology are linked to social behaviors or social issues and I think it has no merit. Also, in my experience, most self-proclaimed feminist's attitudes change drastically after getting knocked up and having children and they become more prototypical women.

Plus, even women that are more T-driven are still "female" at their roots, they just don't submit as easily to the average man. My girlfriend is more T-driven but is still very feminine with me but she cannot be handled by your run-of-the-mill man. I'm a lot more attracted to girls pursuing their PhDs, actually, and haven't run into any of the problems or issues that you're raising in this thread. Unless I'm missing a point you're making somewhere?

-Richard

 

[Hue]

Taking a class on hormones and behaviors this current semester. Richard spells out some key concepts I've learned in that class in his reply.

It is important to recognize there's a correlation in testosterone spikes in animals and aggressive behavior directed toward reproduction. The link most people obviously make is testosterone --> sex drive, but with homosapiens (and some other species of mammals & reptiles) it's not that clean cut, and there's a lot of factors at play. Like most things in society, it's not just biological. Sure you could argue that biology is the first domino to a lot of things, but then it becomes a chaotic abundance of influences.

The two stages (organizational and activational) being referred to involve androgens organizing the brain to have an affinity for types of sexual behavior, then being activated to influence actions most common from that organization. You still have social expectations / experiences that will influence a person one way or another, as well as biological factors beyond just androgens that allow for genetic expressions of androgens to do nature's thing.

I've met numerous homosexuals with high sex drives, with very masculine features. They seem to have high testosterone, but simply prefer dick / aren't sexually attracted to women. Homosexuality / bisexuality / transgender attractions and gender roles are more complex than that.


My one experience with dating a feminist (very outgoing) was she emotionally wanted nothing more than to be dominated by a strong man - but her logical brain was slightly more focused on aligning with the typical attitudes most feminists are portrayed to have than an average girl. More or less her ASD was harder to get by, but this is the same with higher quality girls in general jafeel?

 

[Ree]

Eh, things get a little dicey when you try to mix biology with social science.

Biologically, our sexes are determined before the 3-week mark. In the embryo, humans have a period of sexual indifference - testosterone activates the SRY gene so our gonads develop into testes as men, and in the absence of a Y chromosome/testosterone, the gonads develop into ovaries.


-Richard

wrong...sex is determined at conception

 

[Ree]

That being said, testosterone only plays a small role in partner preference.

-Richard

wrong again

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prenatal_ ... rientation

 

[Ree]

http://www.bio.brandeis.edu/classes/her ... ter7-2.pdf

 

[Hue]

Ree,

There was really no debate as to whether sex is determined very early in development (as Richard pointed out, it depends on whether you have the SRY gene which leads to development of the Wolffian gonadal system and the suppression of the Mullerian gonadal system).

The "debate" was centered around sexual preference, which is a very complex process that is NOT determined by sex, biology, or up bringing alone. This is not the only post where you seem to understand biology as the only determinate of human livelihood and development. We are animals. We are also animals that live in an extremely complex society with potentially hundreds to thousands of influences every day (such as stress, among MANY others) and it is a rather minimalist point of view to say that everything is determined by biology.

That was one of multiple leaps of logic I see you making in this post, at least from the way you tried to explain your point. There are "biological anomalies", that is for certain. And there are many conditions that change people's affinities to what "type" of adult they'll be, such as XX women with masculine features and behaviors because of hormonal abnormalities. In your post it looked like you suggested all feminists are somewhere in this category which I find a major leap of reason. Many feminists are feminists for entirely social or personal issues (ie caught up in the movement because they've been convinced by friends and family, or I know a girl who was actually raped and has a personal drive to empower women against shit like this).

In that post, your only response was "wrong. see, sex is determined at conception." which has very little to do with the overall point Richard (and I) had attempted to draw out. There showed very little attempt to understand another point of view, and your response was extremely limited to the minimalist, "biology is the all-determinate point of view".

Do not get me wrong, biology is huge, and arguably the first domino to fall in any organism. But it's the affinity that biology creates, and things like quality of childhood, role models, societal expectations, socioeconomic status, education, trauma, stress, and TONS of other shit that also play a part. Genes + environment = human psychology is the simplest way to describe this, but that doesn't cast enough light into the cluster fuck of factors that is humanity.

EDIT: Feminine behaviors, as studied by endocrinology are partially reflective of gender roles. Like when searching for a mate, that is pretty pinned down to typical male / female tendencies. But many aspects of the feminine movement are about empowering women in ways that have more to do with gender role derived inequality (such as wage differences among similar performing coworkers), and are more based in gender roles and expectations. Those things aren't causally pinned to abnormally high testosterone.


Hue

 

[Chase]

Ree-

Leaving aside any discussion of homosexual men, I think you might find this bit of research on feminists interesting:

Feminist activist women are masculinized in terms of digit-ratio and social dominance: a possible explanation for the feminist paradox

The feminist movement purports to improve conditions for women, and yet only a minority of women in modern societies self-identify as feminists. This is known as the feminist paradox. It has been suggested that feminists exhibit both physiological and psychological characteristics associated with heightened masculinization, which may predispose women for heightened competitiveness, sex-atypical behaviors, and belief in the interchangeability of sex roles. If feminist activists, i.e., those that manufacture the public image of feminism, are indeed masculinized relative to women in general, this might explain why the views and preferences of these two groups are at variance with each other. We measured the 2D:4D digit ratios (collected from both hands) and a personality trait known as dominance (measured with the Directiveness scale) in a sample of women attending a feminist conference. The sample exhibited significantly more masculine 2D:4D and higher dominance ratings than comparison samples representative of women in general, and these variables were furthermore positively correlated for both hands. The feminist paradox might thus to some extent be explained by biological differences between women in general and the activist women who formulate the feminist agenda.

Chase

 

[BetaBoy]

Gay guys aren’t bad to befriend, they normally have a lot of female friends. They are admamit about women’s rights because they feel ostracisized like women.

 

[Ree]

Ree-

Leaving aside any discussion of homosexual men, I think you might find this bit of research on feminists interesting:

Feminist activist women are masculinized in terms of digit-ratio and social dominance: a possible explanation for the feminist paradox

The feminist movement purports to improve conditions for women, and yet only a minority of women in modern societies self-identify as feminists. This is known as the feminist paradox. It has been suggested that feminists exhibit both physiological and psychological characteristics associated with heightened masculinization, which may predispose women for heightened competitiveness, sex-atypical behaviors, and belief in the interchangeability of sex roles. If feminist activists, i.e., those that manufacture the public image of feminism, are indeed masculinized relative to women in general, this might explain why the views and preferences of these two groups are at variance with each other. We measured the 2D:4D digit ratios (collected from both hands) and a personality trait known as dominance (measured with the Directiveness scale) in a sample of women attending a feminist conference. The sample exhibited significantly more masculine 2D:4D and higher dominance ratings than comparison samples representative of women in general, and these variables were furthermore positively correlated for both hands. The feminist paradox might thus to some extent be explained by biological differences between women in general and the activist women who formulate the feminist agenda.

Chase

omg...so interesting and so true.
makes me pity feminists actually.
they are not horrible people out to detsroy society.
they are just a biological anomaly