Gender divison is biggest mistake of mankind

Nature optimizes form with function. It would not maintain male and female forms, if there was only one function for sexual differentiation. However, if you look at the personality firmware of the human brain/mind, there are similarities in male and female, but these similarities are staggered, so they mesh like the teeth of two gears.

The male has a female side and the female has a male side. These are programmed by cross sexual interactions. Men learn to be more feminized by learning from women, such as their mother or spouse. A gay male centers himself with his female side. But there are higher level firmware which are male in the male and female and the female. This is why the gay male is often an exaggerated female; little girl pretending because his female side is lower than the female side it copied from.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Maybe its the multitude of opinions that ultimately decides whether something is science. I can tell you that the first rule that all "scientists" break is the one about stating an opinion as fact, such as claiming something is "fucking idiotic"; you cannot make a statement like this without following up with reason. You listed some references to "trivially obvious" phenomena.

However you did nothing to make your statement any more scientific than the "unremarkable observations with pseudo-mathematical "equations"".... strictly speaking from observation rather than progressing others' logic only has one outcome: ego boosting. Funny thing is, your ego would be greater if you actually did something rather than state your observations, which this fellow seemed to try to do.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

UNLESS.... you find your vagina starting to fall out of your body and it looks like a penis...

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Women have long been hiding that, as they age, they start to become hermaphrodites, and, by the late 60s or early 70s, they have an actual penis and everything.

That's why old couple's sexual lives tend to decline, they're embarrassed of admitting this, and just close themselves, while living as transvestites. That's why that peeing-standing-up in "Miss Doubtfire" is really sad. That's the reality of many former-women of that age, not something to be scared or to make jokes about.

Men don't become women again though, that doesn't happen because the transformation/development of the vagina into a penis is a form of cicatrization -- the keloid-like scar tissue is noticeable at the bottom side of the penis -- (which is a one-way only process, unless a wound is opened by an external force), that already happened when they were still in their mother wombs or only somewhat later than that. But the cicatrized vulva never splits again into a vulva, just like healed wounds won't open again after years and years.

Society really needs to bring attention to this conspiracy of old men/former-women, so that they can have better lives, accepting who they really are, either by splitting/divorcing, or having a sex-changing surgery, or by becoming homosexuals. Of course, LGBT-haters and the church won't like any of these options, so they will keep trying to hide the truth.



[/pseudoscience just for laughs]

 

No, the first thing anybody with reason does is decide whether the person talking to them makes any kind of sense or not.

There is no obligation for a scientist - or indeed anyone else - to listen patiently to the ravings of every madman on the street corner. Nobody has the right to demand the attention of another. Attention is earned, by saying something that makes sense and is interesting. So it is up to our poster to make her case well enough to get a hearing.

This passage:

"Now let’s talk in mathematical language. Here is the equation, Man = 22 autosomes + X + Y Woman= 22 autosomes + X + X= 22 autsomes + X (by logic not by mathematics). . . Man= (22 autosomes + X) + Y= Woman + Y (by mathematics, simply) So man is everything that woman is, plus something extra. Now the extra thing is not qualitatively different, but quantitatively. Hence Y here must be somewhat like X + 1, X+2 or X+ 3 or something like that. It would be ultimately proven that woman can potentially grow into man",

makes no sense whatever, especially seeing that chromosomes are not mathematical quantities but labels for biological structures. One could, with equal logic say woman = man + 2B -C -2b +2o + w, where B = breast, C = cock, b = ball, o = ovary and w = womb.

Any idiot can play this sort of game but it means nothing.

And then, to put the tin hat on it, we find the author has written a book on the "spirit of light". Well, whatever that means, it's not science.

 

Many anarchist would say gender identity should be smashed. Should it? I don't think so, not completely at least. It seems that are certain group of anarchists think that everybody should be the opposite of what gender they were born. Any ideas what purpose that would prove?

 

Of course not. Most of us identify with a gender, and that seems to work well in a society that depends on sexuality to propagate itself.

There are any number of silly ideas out there.

 

X and y are same...........

Actually it has been already proved that y chromosome is similar to x except a missing leg(some genetic loci are missing)so xx and xy difference is only limited to personality and extension or suppression of some bodily parts In man labia fuse to form scrotum , clitoris extends into penis Ovaries drop down from above to become testis.....(ref- MAN IS THE EXTENSION OF WOMAN)

 

Well, sure. In the same way that the words "war" and "warren" are the same. Except for the extra "ren."

Or woman is an extension of man; both work as well.

(Please tell me that with a name like "surgeongirl" you aren't just figuring out how secondary sexual characteristics form . . . .)

 

Why do woman wear "make-up"? Is gender neutrality a form of "make-up" to create an illusion of better brains? All you have to do is watch little boys and girls without coaching and one will see the natural differences. Coaching will make them unnatural.

 

what modern science told us...........

x and y are not dissimilar . In fact they are so similar that y is called x with missing leg. If that is correct then there remain no difference in blue print . if blue print is same how can the structure erected on the basis of this can be different. Only difference must be in arrangement and for a capable mind that is no difference at all . so to say man is just the woman with clitoris enlarged as penis. Vagina stitched to be scrotum and ovaries dropped down from the tummy as testis........(Ref-man is the extension of woman)

 

The X chromosome carries approx 2,000 out of the 20-25 000 genes.

The Y carries 78.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X_chromosome

Almost identical?

I went to a lecture 2 weeks ago at Imperial College given by the Professor of Neuro-Endocrine Pharmacology. She pointed out that due to the action of testosterone, the brain of the male foetus is "wired" to respond differently from females to hormones, by the time of birth. The whole hormonal feedback system is quite different between the sexes. This is reflected in the different susceptibility to various mental disorders of the sexes (e.g. depression, Parkinson's Disease, ADHD, Asperger's Syndrome).

It is perfectly plain that there are deep-seated differences between the male and female bodies.

 

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread...e-of-mankind&p=3104221&viewfull=1#post3104221

Thanks for pointing that out. It saved a lot of reading.

 

are you saying a woman was a hermaphrodite ? the it evolved into man ? ( some ) not all.

 

Happeh?

 

Societal pressures, mainly.

No.

Coaching will make them human beings fit to live in a society. Humans, unlike most animals, cannot become fully functioning members of society without coaching (i.e. education, both formal and informal.)

 

Natural does not require artificial additives, laws, or manipulative education, since natural is innate and comes with the DNA. Coaching is manipulative. Innate does need learning or coaching. Who taught you to breath? If we wanted everyone to be coached, as to how we show properly breath, we could coach people to breath 5 times and then hold their breath for 10 seconds, then repeat. That is fake even if ti allows one to fit in. I am not concerned with fake but only what is innate and exists without make-up.

Historically, the male provided and the female was dependent. The increasing welfare state implies more feminization due to even increasing levels of dependency. I would infer the current illusion of equality is being created by dumbing down the men so the female can appear to rise. The shift toward more dependency, shows less natural masculine, so the illusion of equal can appear meet in the middle. Culture and women would be better off allowing all to be who they are naturally. This would shift the cultural balance back toward self reliance and give women a better goal to achieve. The he-she male is not a challenge for women.

 

I'm sorry, did you just say something extremely dumb?

Both men and woman are dependent on machines. Do cars exist naturally?