A person who is stupid is actually less likely to realize the meaninglessness and lack of control in their pitiful life and therefore less likely to become depressed and commit suicide, so there's that. Or less likely to try new things, and so guarantee that they are less likely to eat something foreign and potentially toxic. Or try new activities or new methods for performing existing activities, and therefore also guarantee them freedom from the risk of experimentation.

But there are other times, when a stupid person / individual is less likely to flourish in an environment that suddenly becomes hostile and requires intelligence to survive.

I don't know, every civilization needs a few grunts to chop wood.


Weren't we talking about gender?

Originally, it is starting to diverge quite a bit.

http://qz.com/89580/how-an-oil-rig-shed-its-macho-culture-and-became-safer-and-more-productive/

The workplace culture of industries can include gendered behaviour that can pose hazards or directly influence safety. In the link above, we can see how the workplace put efforts into a workplace safety campaign and curbed accident rates as well as machismo behaviour and workplace culture.

Similarly, what can be said about what activities or behaviour society genders and regulates, and what the effects are of it? How does this affect people in general? What about trans people specifically?

---

Link B: http://www.wgac.colostate.edu/men-and-masculinities

The gendering of activities, while out of context, is harmless, in reality is often regulated by the surrounding community or other social factors. Taking information from link B: this regulation of behaviour can be highly damaging to men. Looking at masculinity: for young cis boys and men, this regulation can lead to poor constructive social skills, restriction of sexuality, physical or sexual violence, or mental health issues. For young trans girls and women, this regulation is acutely expressed as the negation of their autonomy and gender identity and can become physically or sexually violent very easily (in addition to all previous factors affecting gender non-conforming males).

Naturally, this has worked similarly for femininity and has previously been expressed as restrictions in the autonomy, political participation, and economic participation of women.

---

IMO: A lot of these biases in the cultures of society might be attributed to evolutionary psychology, however, for quite a long time now, especially since the development of agriculture, a lot of these biases are largely unfounded and not bona fide or substantial in a lot of cases in which these biases might be used to restrict the behaviour of others.

ex. whatever gender a nurse is has virtually no bearing on their performance and is not something to ridicule

ex. mixed gender military platoons, while not necessarily capable of any performing tasks at the same efficiency as an all-gender platoon, can still be imperialist effective at different tasks, and their existence does not demand that they be used in the same capacity as other platoons

ex. [anything] should be considered for its own merits and positive traits

bam on topic

Being gay makes it significantly less likely you'll produce offspring without using technology our society has developed. And the initial thesis, reiterated by Roy is, that this argument isn't valid in today's society anymore.

Implying that boom-and-bust is bad. But yeah, that's a debate for another topic.

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Jul 4 2016, 6:51 am by NudeRaider.

I'm not implying anything. I'm stating that a stable population that grows slower will extend the boom phase. That's all.

This is why the undersea city Rapture failed (Bioshock). Too many upper class citizens not enough grunts.

I'm unsure as to how this is important except as an issue of family-building that gay people need to deal with (afaik it's a big issue with straight people who make it difficult for LGBTQ parents in general to adopt as a "solution").

edit I have no idea what I'm saying or what's being said

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Jul 4 2016, 12:39 pm by Sand Wraith.

*sigh* k. you state that not having a boom-and-bust is good. Same difference.


Not sure you noticed, but... Nobody here thinks that, what once might've been a disadvantage for the species (being gay), (or not, according to Lanth, but that's beside the point) still is relevant to our society. It's just stated again and again because I'm having trouble explaining the concept. But to make it clear: Nobody here (so far) supports that concept.

Intelligence is the most important trait of our species survival. If we were to be annihilated by a gigantic meteor tomorrow, our collective intelligence could have prevented that. The longevity of the species is different than that of the individual.



Not really, actually, considering the only real contender for a species that has proven longevity despite global extinctions is the waterbear. Even then, they will still actually die at end of our solar system's life, or a pathogen evolves to eradicate them.

Reproduction is only one component of the ability of a species to survive, and for certain members to lack this ability does not mean they are not contributing to the longevity of the species. Ignoring the actual social issues involved of being able to choose to procreate, and whether or not one even has the ability; your entire premise is built on a naively simplified determination about actually doing the most good for humanity.

Isaac Newton, for instance, contributed greatly to the preservation of the species, while never having procreated.

As we achieve advancements in what we are capable, we also increase the ability of our species to survive by increasing the sphere of influence on the Universe around us. While we have no natural living predators, we're nonetheless stuck on a rock in a very hostile Universe that could kill us in an instant without our knowing. A single gamma ray burst could annihilate the entire species, regardless of how many of us there are. So could alien invasion, or any number of possible, however unlikely scenarios.

Stupidity is what holds us back from progress and the ability to do things. People who rise against vaccination and attempt to influence public policy are damaging to the species. But people that choose not reproduce are not, because by choosing not to reproduce they're not damaging the collective species or any members therein.

No, I didn't state that.

1. I didn't say that gay individuals in a group would "prevent" a boom-and-bust cycle, I said that it would lengthen the boom part of that cycle.
2. I didn't say it was "good" or "bad". I stated that it would lengthen the boom phase of a boom-and-bust cycle. There is no value judgement in that statement.

K. But without at least trying to argue one way or another the remark is pretty pointless in terms of the debate, so I assumed you count that as a pro since the question has arisen just before your comment.

Not really what? You say the waterbear (which is a fairly unintelligent animal) is very successful. But even they will die when the solar system dies. Humans however, thanks to their intelligence, which spawned technology, are likely to survive even that. So both species could be considered pretty successful, although humans still have a long way to go until that is proven. For the sake of the argument lets say the concept is sound so far.


Pretty much agree, but it all seems to only lead away from the gay debate.

You stated that homosexuality couldn't help the survivability of a species. So I gave you a plausible example of a species where a low level recurring incidence of homosexuality could be more adapted to the environment than a species that didn't have that recurring trait.

So you do think preventing a volatile boom-and-bust is good. And I still say that's a debate for another topic.

Go ahead and open up another topic. It sounds like you guys (not just Lanth and Nude) have quite a bit to discuss, so, discuss it! Quote someone and copy/paste that into a new thread

How much do you think society should force normal individuals to cater to the needs of these people?

Ideally, society would not "force" "normal" individuals to do anything. "Normal" individuals as part of a healthy society would be inclusive of all members of that society by default.

I think Clans means how much should society cater to people who are different than the majority with respect to some aspect (in this case sexual preference).

In my opinion, society should allow persons complete freedom of expression as long as it does not allow people to do what is morally wrong. The 'morally wrong' part is the part that different societies interpret differently (that doesn't mean I don't believe there is no correct set of morals, by the way, since I do believe that there is).

So, my answer to the question: if by cater to you mean change laws so that this set of people get what they want, then yes - if they are being limited by laws which are preventing them from doing something which is not immoral.

Universal health care or health insurance, where either exists and where it would be intuitive to include, (ex. insurance that normally cover a general range of things, and excluding dental coverage sort of deal) should cover any medical transition costs (ex. counseling, gender confirmation surgery, or hormone therapy) since it is medically necessary. As a matter of practicality, the cost impact on an individual can be enormous whereas for a community (especially a large developed country) the costs for virtually nil due to the low proportion of individuals who need it.

Wrt other matters: treatment toward trans people should be more or less like any other person who shares a common gender.

So respect and respect also for their gender.

Legislation should be amended to identify explicitly protection for trans people from discrimination (ex. protection from discrimination on the basis of gender [identity and/or presentation]). Even in places where the legislature is already interpreted as including them, as it makes preparing a legal case easier.

Sex ed should be patched to provide information on gender, gender dysphoria, gender roles, stereotypes, etc. Not what each is comprised of in terms of elements, but rather, what each means and examples of each. So teaching an example of a stereotype would be absurd, but teaching that gender stereotypes exist and by no means should be used as a basis for discrimination or bullying is constructive. (Well, everything I hear about US's sex ed is nightmare tbh, and only recently Ontario has patched their curriculum). Obviously the biggest benefactors here are young gender-questioning or gender variant children.

Can't think of much else atm.

EDIT: but tbh what Lanth said.

Post has been edited 2 time(s), last time on Jul 6 2016, 7:19 am by Sand Wraith.