I've checked the study which claims that the LGBTQ group experienced more CSA on average than the heterosexual group. Its a comparative study of 942 participants. I say this because comparative studies cannot establish causation on their own. They are useful for providing directions for future studies that do test for causation.
Although there might be
some
causation in here, proving it is way beyond a comparative study, and applying results from it to an entire group generally isn't useful.
Useful read
One might also bring up the fact that homosexuality can be explained by prenatal factors and immune reactions during pregnancy. I might come back to this and add some sources.
Another thing I did notice is that this video claims that there is no single flamboyant person gene, which is correct. But is true of many groups, including heterosexuality.
There is no single "straight" gene.
This also doesn't make conversion therapy effective, as conversion therapy has been shown to be rather ineffective and downright dangerous.
Link that might convince you that conversion "therapy" is no different from female genital mutilation
@Olgol: I'm fucking with you special
if you immeditately trust the science just because "le experts" say it then you're a goycattle special
iirc my science teacher once told me to "not always trust the science"
@MenstrualCykill: You are scientifically illiterate and fundamentally anti science then.
If people who spent literal DECADES pursuing a degree in a field can be shown to be wrong (they can be), how much does the scientifically illiterate public get wrong?
Experts aren't priesthood, but they are a damn good rule of thumb when evaluating evidence.
>Although there might be some causation in here, proving it is way beyond a comparative study, and applying results from it to an entire group generally isn't useful.
It is true that comparative studies are generally ineffective on the own when it comes to providing the sufficient data for establishing causation, they can still imply that there is some definite connection with the subject in question, especialy when multiple comparative studies lead to the same general consensus of a group.
>there is no single flamboyant person gene, which is correct. But is true of many groups, including heterosexuality.
True, but it doesn't disprove that homosexuality isn't biologically natural the primary function of the male penis is to implant seed into the female vagina, so that the female may bear children, not to be inserted into another man's asshole, which is used the expel waste, waste that is made up of around 20-50 percent of bacteria.
>It is true that comparative studies are generally ineffective on the own when it comes to providing the sufficient data for establishing causation, they can still imply that there is some definite connection with the subject in question, especialy when multiple comparative studies lead to the same general consensus of a group.
Yes, which is why they're useful for deciding what future studies should look into and how hypotheses are framed.
>True, but it doesn't disprove that homosexuality isn't biologically natural the primary function of the male penis is to implant seed into the female vagina, so that the female may bear children, not to be inserted into another man's asshole, which is used the expel waste, waste that is made up of around 20-50 percent of bacteria.
The last part is mostly philosophy and whether or not you consider there to be purposeful design in nature. Im agnostic on that, but then you'd have to explain how chimps and even prehistoric humans used to have homosexual members if its not "natural"
Wait really?
I knew this ferret was done because of his doll obsession you know the smal ones.
Isn't he like 40 btw?
:tacoblimp:
I've checked the study which claims that the LGBTQ group experienced more CSA on average than the heterosexual group. Its a comparative study of 942 participants. I say this because comparative studies cannot establish causation on their own. They are useful for providing directions for future studies that do test for causation.
Although there might be
Useful read
One might also bring up the fact that homosexuality can be explained by prenatal factors and immune reactions during pregnancy. I might come back to this and add some sources.
Another thing I did notice is that this video claims that there is no single flamboyant person gene, which is correct. But is true of many groups, including heterosexuality.
There is no single "straight" gene.
This also doesn't make conversion therapy effective, as conversion therapy has been shown to be rather ineffective and downright dangerous.
Link that might convince you that conversion "therapy" is no different from female genital mutilation
Fuck flamboyant people.
@JimboClittyLeakageArchive: ferret has pooners in his head rent free
if you immeditately trust the science just because "le experts" say it then you're a goycattle special
iirc my science teacher once told me to "not always trust the science"
not really but you are one
If people who spent literal DECADES pursuing a degree in a field can be shown to be wrong (they can be), how much does the scientifically illiterate public get wrong?
Experts aren't priesthood, but they are a damn good rule of thumb when evaluating evidence.
My goodness, you are cattle, you don't belong here at all
Read it again, slowly and carefully.
If the experts are wrong, then the public is much, much, MUCH more wrong.
Experts spent decades studying. They of all people know the best on average
It is true that comparative studies are generally ineffective on the own when it comes to providing the sufficient data for establishing causation, they can still imply that there is some definite connection with the subject in question, especialy when multiple comparative studies lead to the same general consensus of a group.
True, but it doesn't disprove that homosexuality isn't biologically natural the primary function of the male penis is to implant seed into the female vagina, so that the female may bear children, not to be inserted into another man's asshole, which is used the expel waste, waste that is made up of around 20-50 percent of bacteria.
Yes, which is why they're useful for deciding what future studies should look into and how hypotheses are framed.
The last part is mostly philosophy and whether or not you consider there to be purposeful design in nature. Im agnostic on that, but then you'd have to explain how chimps and even prehistoric humans used to have homosexual members if its not "natural"