Is Gender Orientation biological?

Fascinating discussion. I’m enthralled.

Interesting questions arising because of it:

If sexual orientation is part of a vast heterosexual conspiracy then what enabled procreation before there was a social/cultural construct to conspire on its behalf?

…or:
If gender is entirely a social construct then why did nature differentiate, so obviously, between sexual types? Is this differentiation only practical? Is it cosmetic? Is it accidental and arbitrary? Is it only external? Is it unavoidable and unsurpassable?

...or
If nature is frugal and efficient, then what necessitated two sexual types that went against “real” homosexual attractions and why only two?

…or:
Why sex, at all? Why bonding? Why intimacy? Why gender? Why life?

....or
Do physical characteristics expose more than superficial differences and is beauty only skin-deep?

…or:
What is a “meaninful existence”, other than the desperate absurdity of a lost mind trying to justify his anger against the world and it's labelling of his divergence as “queer” by assuming a transcending purpose or wanting to find the courage to express his homosexual leanings openly in a world that would judge him through it and make him feel inferior and wierd?

…or:
Who is the leader of this heterosexual conspiracy? Who thought it up? Who directs it and perpetuates its falsehoods? Who started it?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Me?!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

…or
If there is a heterosexual conspiracy then one can assume that there might be a conspiracy on behalf of tall people? Who decided being tall was superior to being short?
Who decided that being thin was more attractive than being fat?
Who decided that being intelligent was preferable to being stupid?
Who decided that we are omnivorous and not our “more natural condition” of herbivorous? Why do I salivate at the smell of roast lamb? Maybe for the same reason I get an erection at the sight of a nice round feminine behind: I’ve been socially conditioned to think I want these things when in fact they go against my “nature”.


…or
How easy it is, in a world that has lost all authority figures and sense of certainty and direction, to construct whatever feel-good theorem suits our personal interests, with flimsy arguments and hilariously moronic musings, and how easy it is in a world where nature has become the authority we most despise and fight against to find clever ways of usurping her ‘design’ and explain her rules in ways that contradict her but benefit us?

…or:
If Buddha1 were a pretty flower, what color would he/she be?
I'm thinking pink with yellow dots or streaks. His stem a dark green.

…or:
Why am I even posting here at all, other than the fact that I’m a loser with nothing better to do and/or an agent of the heterosexual conspiracy network trying to alter men from fudgpacking daisies to vagina loving whores?

In a world where reason has been given reasons to not believe in anything, the first thing that happens is that bright minds find themselves stuck in extreme skepticism and nihilistic despair. It is evident that rational thought, unburdened by physical determinations, is unhealthy and self-exterminating.

When nature’s forces have been controlled and her power over us loosened we find ourselves hovering in the air with nothing to stand on and nowhere to turn but inward.

More dim minds flee from their own enlightenment and use the opportunity to construct new edifices and reinterpret nature and her purposes so as to explain their individual mutations in flattering, self-serving ways.

In a world where we are free from nature’s cruelty and protected from her authority, we become masters of our delusions and come to believe that it is our quality and special nature that has defeated her whims.

Our release from natural law is slow and cumbersome, but it isn’t only physical. Our mind tries to reinvent its purpose by reinventing its past. It turns the very laws that made it possible and that could probably result in its demise and shame, into laws that ensure its continuance and become a source of pride.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Well, they ARE abnormalities. I'm not saying that's bad or anything, I'm just using the very definition of abnormal- something that isn't normal. The normal is male and female, they're not, so they're abnormal. And hermaphrodite is a SEX, not a gender. If we classified people by both their gender AND sex, there would be like dozens of them.

Gender itself isn't natural or biological, it's influenced by your environment. Ok, maybe no boy was raised to be girly, but maybe they had all sisters, or they hanged around girls, etc.

Yes, I am talking about transexuals. It is natural, as they had a normal environment growing up, but because one area of their brain is different, they feel the need to be the other sex. It IS an abnormality. Again, I'm not saying it's bad or anything, but it is abnormal.

You didn't quote me very well... but ok, whatever. What I mean is that each of those things are separate.
A straight male may be masculine/feminine, a straight female may be masculine/feminine, a gay/bi male may be masculine/feminine, a transexual may be straight/gay, etc. Not just because you're straight and you're male you'll be masculine, etc.

When I say abnormal or weird, I mean out of the ordinary. When I say those two things I don't mean anything bad. I even say that i'm weird and abnormal. Why? because i'm out of the ordinary, but I like being weird.

Well, yeah... but which sex are you talking about? their biological sex or the one they turned into? That's why I didn't say anything about their sexual orientation, it's just too confusing.

(I'll just talk about one sex, but the same applies to the other)
Because being effeminate is being a man acting like the stereotypical woman acts, and of course how women act is based on society's standards. The effeminate man is effeminate because they were in an environment which promoted being effeminate, so they act like that. They don't want to be women, they just act like them because that's how they grew up.
Transexuals on the other hand, were brought up as boys but because of their brains they want to be girls. They have a biological need to be the opposite sex. Get what I mean now?

Mentally ill? no. I know bisexuals who are smarter than you (*cough* and at least when it comes to book smarts, smarter than me :-/ )

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I guess the word freak explains everything. I don't need to comment on that.

I'll just say that before you reach at conclusions I think you should understand what I'm saying. If it is true there are implications for each one of us. Whatever our gender orienation is.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Do you really think all that is 'intellectual'? There is sarcasm yes, but devoid of any intelligence -- so not worth commenting upon.

All the issues you've raised have been covered in the thread "Heterosexuality is unnatural" -- you're not unaware of it. We saw your stupid comments there from time to time. It is obvious that you weren't there to learn or share anything --- just to give vent to your feminine satire. So don't ask those questions again, and not here.

And yes about your comments on me, let me remind our readers of this:

.

As for my being homosexual, well, even according to your own definitions I'm not one, as we have discussed before. So parroting this line again again exposes your 'cunning' and desparate ways. By the way "Cunning is queer!". Straight men are straight forward.

 

You can crap on about that in the threads discussing 'sexual orientation', don't disrupt the discussions here, unless you have something to say (however worthless) about 'gender orientation'.

 

Why would you call another human being 'mentally ill'?

 

The only real freaks and mentally ill people are males who claim to be 'heterosexual' and 'masculine' at the same time.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

apparently you never worked in a mental institution where the residents smeared shit on the walls.

 

Oh, of course. Shit smearers. The faggots. I understand, now. God! What an idiot I've been.

 

Oh, hey, Buddha, what the hell are you talking about?

 

If you predetermine 'normal' as male or female then apparently 'hermaphrodite' becomes abnormal. Just like if you predetermine only 'heterosexual' as normal then male-male bonds automatically become 'abnormal'. But what is our basis for predetermine them as such. Just because they are rare or uncommon does not make them 'abnormal'. The term 'abnormal' has negative connotations, as in they should not have been there.

There is no justification for calling hermaphrodites 'abnormal' other than that the society recognises only male and female. It's all cultural. Ancient societies not only recognised hermaphrodism but even venerated it.

'Hermaphrodites' become 'abnormal', as do 'homosexuals' if one believes in the Darwin's opinions that passed off as legitimate science that "life is only about procreation", because hermaphrodite sometimes cannot procreate (or am I wrong --- may be they can!).

However, I have already challenged Darwin, and so far no one has been able to refute my assertions ro the evidences that I have given.

Everything in nature has a purpose. and that means EVERYTHING. If science cannot figure that out, it is the fallibility of science, not of nature. But who said that science is perfect.

The truth is that not even a leaf turns without a purpose. That's the realm of philosophy, but I believe in a broader worldview than science can provide.

There are at least six of them --- and several ancient societies accepted them all. Most traditional societies accept at least two genders of men --- masculine and feminine. But none, and I emphasise NONE had any concept of 'sexual orientation' whatsover. The western society generally does not accept 'gender' but has created a new concept of 'sexual orientation' which is not validated by nature. It's all cultural.

There is a big MAYBE. Do all men who have only sisters grow up to be feminine? My female colleague has one brother and one sister. Her brother is more macho than average.

Heterosexuals hang around girls. In fact most men in heterosexual societies hang around girls --- only 'real' heteroseuxals do it merrity, the others are pressurised. And that does make the 'real' heterosexuals more feminine. But the relationship is actually the other way round. It is not that they hang around with girls that they become feminine, but that they are feminine that they hang around with girls. Although in some cases the femininity of these heterosexuals may be camouflaged by 'fake' social masculinity/ social power.

Well, at one time the society said the same about 'homosexuals'. It's all cultural. There is no evidence to suggest they are abnormal, except that the culture keeps them out. In most ancient societies and in all tribal societies whom we call transexuals enjoy a very special status. Feminiity (just like masculinity) in males occur in various degrees. What the west calls transgenerism is just one stage. Transexualism is when this femininity is overwhelming. In any case all of us even if we are masculine gendered, have some femininity in us. (Just like all feminine males and women have some masculinity in them!). IT IS ALL BIOLOGICALLY DETERMINED.

Once you accept that 'sexual orientation' is a valid divide and more basic than 'gender orientation' then of course what you are saying is absolutely true. But, this very 'sexual orientation' divide is invalid.

I could also put it this way: The world is divided into masculine gendered (straight) and feminine gendered (gay) males. Masculine gendered males may be sexually attracted to either men, women, feminine gendered males or more than one of them, while Feminine gendered males may also be attracted to men, women, feminine gendered males or more than one of them.

Not just because you're masculine you'll be attracted to women, etc.

Do you see my point?

Abnormal and weird are negative terms meant to denigrate a particular human trait or 'group' of people. Did you notice the kind of extreme reaction calling heterosexuality 'queer' generated in some people.

If transexuality is confusing let's just talk about 'transgendered' heterosexuals. Why are they denied a space within the heterosexual identity. If you read the history of heterosexual transgendered men in the modern west, they have been shunned by the heterosexuals (because of their open femininity), as well as by the 'homosexuals' (because of their heterosexuality), with the ultimate effect that they had to establish a separate identity.

See, this whole 'sexual identity' business is because of exclusion rather than because of natural affiliations. There is hardly any natural affiliation between a transgendered male who likes men and a masculine gendered male who likes men. They both look at themselves differently, at this life differntly and have completely different lifestyles. On the other hand a feminine gendered male who likes men will find easy affiliation with a feminne gendered male who likes women. They both will enjoy the same things, they look at life in much the same way. The same goes for masculine gendered males whether they like men or women (whether they are capable of liking women beyond a point is another debate!).

a. There are various degrees of femnininty in men. Feminiity in masculine men is hardly visible. Amongst predominantly feminine men, some men enjoy being like women sometimes, but they don't think of themselves as women. Others may want to be like a woman all of the time but still may not think of themselves as a woman. Still others may think of themselves as a woman inside a man's body. (People feel trapped basically because of social reasons). But its all natural.

b. Yes there is something called 'social' femininity and it is very strong, especially in the west. But just because there is something like 'social' femininity does not mean that there is nothing like 'natural' femininity in males (or females). In most cases naturally feminine males (depending upon the degree of their biological femininity) express themselves through 'social' femininity. Otherwise why would someone want to do things that have such 'negative' value for men --- socially!

Yet you don't accept 'gender orientation' as biological. I understand that it has a biological basis, but what you don't understand is that even 'feminine' behaviour (what is negatively referred to as 'effeminate' behaviour has a biological basis). And so does 'masculine' behaviour. Also it is not all in the 'brains'. Brains may hold just part of the clue.

See, all these terms are just because of one's biases --- and depends on who is in power. Heterosexuals have power over 'homosexuals', so they call them 'weird'. 'Homosexuals' have power over transexuals, so they call them 'freaks'. It's all because of power inequations created by social systems we live in.

Otherwise every individual who makes it to this world naturally (i.e. without medical intervention) is a normal child and has a purpose in nature's scheme of things. Societies through their foolishness and an over/ negative use of their brains have made some of these absolutely natural and normal things redundant and denigrated. While the same society, through its science, makes it possible for many 'abnormal' individuals to live --- when nature did not mean them to.

 

So how we look at gender and sexuality is culturally determined. Science can offer a glimpse of reality only when it can prove its ability to look beyond the powerful cultural influences.

 

Nature is frugal, and not exuberant.

By that I mean that everything has a purpose (and much to the disappointment of 'heterosexuals' quantity is just a small part of it). Every single thing in nature has a purpose in its scheme of things. If one of its constituents begin to go against it nature will take care of it in due course of time. And this is the case with human brain. Humans think they can conquer nature with their brains, they are wrong. In fact they will themselves --- through their brains ensure their own downfall, ensuring that nature goes on unperturbed.

For some time, foolish humans may start believing that they, through their brains are infallible --- the partial worldview of 'Science' makes them believe that..... but it's only those who have stuck to the broader world-view that has elements of science, spirituality, philosophy, instincts, etc. who have a better perspective on reality and who realise what's going wrong.

 

I'm coming my darling. Yes, yes, YES.

 

Just put him in your ignore list. Have you looked at his profile?

I accept evolution, but that has nothing to do with why I call them abnormal. I call them abnormal because anything that's not normal (normal being "average" or "mainstream") And as for them procreating, I'm not sure... but I do know that the most of them can't. There may be some true hermaphrodites (who are very rare) that can procreate though.

This is the first thread of yours I've actually payed attention, but from what I've seen it's not that people haven't refuted your so called "evidences" based on nothing, but that you just don't accept what they say.

No, it doesn't. Tell me, why do we have erector pili (the muscles that raise our hairs up and give us goosebums), why do dandelions have flowers if they're sterile? Ever heard of useless vestigial structures? Don't you accept evolution?


blah, I read some of the rest of your post and I see arguing with you is pointless. You don't understand what I'm saying, you twist my words, etc... and I don't understand what you're saying. Not to mention the posts are huge (both sides)... Pointless.

You apparently think your opinions and stuff are based on science, but you're obviously deluding yourself.

 

I also think its bad for the discussion as a whole, including for readers who may want to go through the discussion hoping to find something useful. Useless posts will dissuade them, as they do to me.

I have no probs with 'evolution' itself. But to say that evolution is geared exclusively or even mainly towards procreation --- which is projected as the sole aim of life, is stretching it toooooooooo far.

I think we should be careful when we use words like abnormal. For science they may just be 'dry', objective, technical words --- but for the outside world they have a terribly negative connotation. And science cannot (should not) function in isolation from the rest of the world.

Can you get one such instance where the evidences provided by me have been proven 'wrong' or my analysis based on them proven false. There will hardly be a couple of cases (frankly I don't remember even one!) where the opposition even considered the cases. They usually ended the discussion abruptly as soon as I presented the evidences. It's been the same story repeated time after time after time.

People will accuse, abuse you, not listen to what you're saying and go on with their own version of things. And this can go on for pages and pages and days. And then you finally give them evidences. And there is a big silence which continues for a couple of days, till the page turns and they can avoid looking at the evidences.

I can't accept what people say, if I know by experience that there is no way they can be telling the truth. So unless they back up what they're saying with evidences, how am I supposed to accept their refutal. Just to say someone is 'wrong' or 'lying' doesn't make it so.

I know what I'm saying. I've come here after 10 long years of hard work. I know how things are at the ground level. I have seen the problem with what the with its science propagates and how it leaves large gaps that I could not initially explain. I have spent these years trying to figure out these gaps --- and it is a result of that, that I'm sharing on this forum here.

Just because science cannot figure out something, doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. That's a highly arrogant attitude of science --- and for something which is not perfect itself, to make such bold assertions is really foolish. How is science different from religion which took it upon itself to speak on behalf of nature or to interpret it in its own way, away from reality?

Perhaps, you should question Darwin's theory of sexual selection, instead of asserting that nature doesn't know what it's doing. There are innumerable evidences that go against Darwin's sexual selection theory or his assertions that life is exclusively/ primarily about 'continuance' or 'survival'.

Science is really stuck up, man!

I believe in evolution. But that doesn't mean that I have to believe in everything else that Darwin theorised.

From what I understand, you feel deeply for 'sexual identities'. Obviously you fit in smugly in the prescribed slots. You don't want to understand. Otherwise, it is something which even a layman can understand.

E.g., what is so complex in a question that points to a double standards in the case of deciding the 'heterosexual' and the 'homosexual' identities, where in the former feminine gender is kept out but in the latter it is not differentiated.

Even a child will understand that. I think you have a great mental block. You have a vested interest in not accepting the lacunae --- to be blunt.

You apparently think your opinions and stuff are based on science, but you're obviously deluding yourself.[/QUOTE]
My opinions and stuff are based on my direct work with men on gender and sexuality issues for 10 years. And a lot of analysis and reading that I've done on a wide range of subjects (from history to religion to science).

They may not have the stamp of the scientific institution, if you want a handle to avoid recognising them as 'scientific'.

Almost all of the evidences that I have used are based on scientific discoveries conducted by 'established science' or they are the empirical evidences based upon my work and those of others.

But above all, what I am saying is something that also touches the heart. For I am speaking what everyone of us can feel --- at least the layman can, and that for me is important, not what some uptight scientist thinks about my analysis.

 

By the way Alpha, if you believe that 'sexual selection' is for real, do you agree that 'homosexuality is a failure biologically' (as has been 'beautifully' put forward by Spuriousmonkey). For homosexuality is totally redundant as far as reproduction or the contiuance and may be survival of our species is concerned.

 

evolution DEPENDS on procreation, so it IS geared SOLELY towards procreation. Otherwise there would BE no evolution.
as for the "aim" (or purpose) of life, scientifically it is procreation. Prove otherwise.

I see your point, but if you're going to have a scientific discussion, then use scientific terms and meanings. Do NOT blend scientific and munane terms, or you get things like "evolution is just a theory".

That's what I've been doing in all my posts. Example- sex, sexual orientation, gender, and what I guess you call "gender orientation" are separate things.

See, when you start saying idiotic things like that is when people start to ignore you. It just shows you know nothing about science or religion. Religion and science are two completely different things.
But apparently you already think science is a religion, and that is why nothing you say is scientific. *mocking voice* "everything in nature has a purpose", blah blah blah. Do you have any evidence? no. You are IGNORING evidence, and making up a conclusion without any regard whatsoever to reality.
Only people who have no clue what science is say things that.

You probably don't even know what sexual selection is.
What evidences? (please, don't list all your "evidences" at once, I despise long posts)

I'm not sure what you mean by your first statement...
I do want to understand, and I do understand... at least better than you. And I'm tolerant and everything you preach, but not because of how you preach it.
LOL, is that why nobody can understand a thing you're saying? Maybe we're too smart to understand. roflmao... I always say stupidity is beyond my comprehension.

Yes it is real.
No, Homosexuality itself is not a failure biologically speaking. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_animals#Birds Look at the swans.
And also look at bonobos. They have a very peaceful society, where there aren't very many fights, etc... and a big part of that is that bonobos are a fully bisexual species. They have sex all the time, and since they have sex with both males and females, they get along with both sexes.
And look at the lizards too.
And if you're asking about humans specifically, There are many reasons why Homosexuality might not have been weeded out. There are millions of variables that can affect evolution.
First, it may not be genetic. It IS biological, but that doesn't mean it's in the genes. It could be the prenatal environment of the fetus or something...
second, the desire to have children is still there. Evolution doesn't care whether you prefer the opposite sex or not, whether you think you're male or female, etc... it just cares whether you have children.
third, society is very against homosexuality, as you well know. The vast majority of homosexuals get married and have children, and nobody would know they're homosexual. That alone is enough to ensure homosexuality remains in the gene pool (if it is genetic).

 

A child is dependant on his parents. That does not mean that it is geared solely towards his parents. Or that the sole purpose of his life is his parents. Procreation is an important tool, even an important part of life, but life has much more to look forward to than just procreate.

To be short, that evolution needs procreation, does not prove that it is geared totally towards procreation.

I think science should change it's terms. Afterall it is an institution meant to serve humanity -- and like I said, it cannot function apart from the rest of the humankind.

Oh! parroting the 'accepted' views on something is not 'refuting' a challenge to that point of view.

I tell the fundamentalist Christian believer that the real god (if there is one) will not penalise love between men, and the Christian believer refutes my position, citing what? --- passages from Bible.

To challenge the powerful is idiotic? If what I am saying is wrong, the first thing that the other person would will be to show me how my assertions are wrong. If I use logic, they will dismantle me logically, point by point. If I don't give any logics just my opinions, then they might choose to involve me into a never ending sharing of 'opiniions' or they might want to silence me once and for all by showing me how my statements are wrong.

And don't be under any delusion. People here are not wary of arguing with the silliest of comments/ opinions and they would go on and on and on. THEY NEVER LET EVEN THE SILLIEST OF POSTS GO UNANSWERED. In fact that is something that surprises me. For if I think the post has no 'intelligence' in it, I just choose not to respond (except to counter a personal attack!).

And it is not surprising that the same people stop abruptly as soon as the evidences are provided. They just drop off. I mean it can really become odd sometimes. Like in the thread titled "95% of men have a sexual need for other men". People went on and on for 5 or 6 pages. And then I gave my first evidence. And it was so strong that there was complete silence for a couple of days. I actually missed an opposition.

It was then that the 'vested interest group' raised a 'revolt' and asked my threads to be merged into one to avoid having to face titles like the above. And then I disowned the thread, because I saw those issues as different from each other and discussing them separately was crucial to my strategy.

If I think that science has become like 'religion' it does not mean that nothing I say is 'scientific'. Two insider scientists have supported my views on the thread "Science is not a perfect institution", and they have some very solid points. You want science to be treated like a holy cow that the common man cannot touch! How are you then different from the stakeholders of religion.

You cannot ask for evidence for a philosophical statement. But definitely the view that what science cannot see does not exist can be challenged. Doctors for a long time believed Gardia to be a harmless organism. They would just refuse to treat it, ascribing people's pathologies to a 'psychological' condition. But today they accept it exists.

Science is not nature itself, but a human attempt to understand nature and its laws. Science can falter. And science cannot know everything. Nature is too vast and complex. The above example is just a little evidence to support this assertion.

From what I understand of sexual selection, it seeks to explain female and especially male biological evolution exclusively on an assumed universal/ motive to mate with females with the ultimate aim of procreation.

Bagemihl, Johann Rough Garden, Paul Vasey (I don't have the name right!) are three people who have totally disproved the above by showing widespread male-male sex behaviour that has nothing to do with procreation. They have also challenged Darwin's notions of sexual selection. So you see, I'm not the only one. Even scientists are doing it.

My first statement is something that I suspected all along, but am confirmed now. You belong to the 'vested interest group' as either a heterosexual or a homosexual, and will defend the 'sexual orientation' divide till your last breath -- whether it is supported by nature or not. Because you have created a cosy place for yourself in it.

They understand alright. Most men don't have a voice on this. I only get to debate with real heterosexual and real homosexual males --- and they comprise the vested interest group. That does not want truth to come out at any cost.

But still, I do sometimes get pleasant surprises when an opponent actually acknowledges that what I'm saying has truth in it. In such matters, it is really an achievment. I cannot expect anything more in such a hostile environment. I know both homosexuals and heterosexuals will stop at nothing to prevent me from talking about the truth.

And also look at bonobos. They have a very peaceful society, where there aren't very many fights, etc... and a big part of that is that bonobos are a fully bisexual species. They have sex all the time, and since they have sex with both males and females, they get along with both sexes.
And look at the lizards too.[/QUOTE]
But what about natural selection then? These theories fly right in the face of sexual selection and reproduction being the exclusive purpose of life.

And you call the above crap science? Just because you use scientific terms? It doesn't make any sense. like the earlier evidences you gave in support of your claim that transgenderism is not biological. You kept on saying MAYBE this or MAYBE that. That's not a very scientific outlook.

What has society got to do with natural evoluciton?

 

You have it backwards. The parents' sole purpose is their child, and therefore the parents depend on their child to survive.

here's what wikipedia says "competition for mates between individuals of the same sex (typically males) drives the evolution of certain traits. Within a species, one sex (typically females) acts as a limiting resource for the other (typically males)."
Sexual selection explains things like the peacock's tail, the antlers of that one elk species from the ice age, etc. They are selected not because they are good for camouflage, or for hunting, or any of that, but because females like it. And that has survived because the females that choose the males with the biggest tails/antlers, survive, as the males have good genes, and that is why they're still alive.

sexual selection has NOTHING to do with homosexuality. So there are homosexuals in nature. So what? That doesn't disprove sexual selection in the least bit.

How am I defending any sex, sexual orientation, etc?

No... natural selection favors homosexuality in those instances because for example the swans, more babies grow up. Remember the parents raped the female to get the babies, so their genes ARE passed on. In bonobos, the bisexual ones get along with everyone else better because they have sex with them, and get more food, etc. so they survive better and have more children. The lizards, their egg production increases, so their genes are passed on. Reproduction, reproduction, reproduction.

It's not science per se, but they are scientific arguments... We still don't know for certain whether it's genetic, the prenatal environment, or what, therefore I cannot say with certainty. I'm just showing you how science can explain it. You said it couldn't.
And when the hell did I say transgenderism is not biological? Transexualism IS biological. Or do you mean effeminate men/tomboys?

because I understand that there are many possible causes for every effect. Yes, it MAY BE that the boy was raised as a girl. Yes, it MAY BE that he had no brothers and hanged out with his sisters all the time. It MAY BE a lot of things, but they all have the same effect and they all are environmental, not biological.
I say maybe this, maybe that, because we are not looking at a specific case. I cannot generalize and say EVERY SINGLE effeminate man out there is effeminate because of THIS specific reason. That would be stupid, and wrong.

Society has a LOT to do with natural evolution. It's just another variable to take into account. Don't be so narrowminded as to completely disregard society in this matter. The ONLY thing that could affect whether homosexuality survives is their ability to reproduce. Nature doesn't specifically target homosexuals. Predators, diseases, etc. don't kill more homosexuals than they do heterosexuals (aids doesn't count. It just happened to have started out in homosexuals).
So the only thing affecting whether homosexuality survives is whether they marry and have children or not, and most homosexuals DO marry and have children. Why? because one, they want to, and two, SOCIETY puts pressure on them to.