Norm... Gay... Straight... Trans...

[QP!]

I wrote this in another thread where it is a bit of a derail so i will post it here for those who do not mind a longer read as the misunderstanding of what is 'normal' in a society and what is not has always been a bit of pet peeve of mine as to how people mislabel or misunderstand it.
.
.
.
What many people DO NOT understand is the concept of the NORM.

The norm is not only where the bulk of the population exists (heterosexual) but that norm ALSO includes a host of minority populations from that majority within the norm, that evolve naturally (gay and trans, etc).

They are all NORMAL while one is majoritarian norm and the other minority norm.

Variants in the norm are evolutionary responses to always test the majoritarian population but also to provide minority populations who might think and do things differently that ends up benefitting the majority population.

I am an example of a minority population, that are extreme risk takers. I have done almost every activity many normal people would never do and i embrace the risk as long as i do not see it as gratuitous risk by my standards.

Without that population of mostly young males, who embraced risk, embraced going on adventures, while not embracing, at an early age, the more normal path of marrying and settling down, much of the modern world would never have been discovered. For young men hoping on a ship and heading out into the middle of nowhere, not knowing if they fall off the edge of the planet (flat earth, etc) was not in the norm.

Brain science has shown that same chasing of risk is now tied most closely to entrepreneurs. Brain science has shown there is a percent of people, mostly young males, who struggle to 'feel' swings in happiness, exhilaration, joy, as others do unless they take risks.

These risk takes (often who die younger) were of great benefit to the 'norm', 'married young family type', who did not want that risk but wanted the job the risk took to build the company.

 

[QP!]

 

[CasualLurker]

People no longer wish to recognize genetic abnormalities.
We mustn't blame or mistreat people for their abnormalities, of course, but it's an illusion to normalize them.

 

[QP!]

People no longer wish to recognize genetic abnormalities.
We mustn't blame or mistreat people for their abnormalities, of course, but it's an illusion to normalize them.

what do you mean by this... "...it's an illusion to normalize them...."

 

[zymurgy]

“Natural variation” doesn’t settle the policy questions. Society still sets rules around privacy, consent, boundaries, and competing rights.

 

[QP!]

“Natural variation” doesn’t settle the policy questions. Society still sets rules around privacy, consent, boundaries, and competing rights.

i think those issues are addressable in all areas of gender interactions.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

what do you mean by this... "...it's an illusion to normalize them...."

The only one I have a definite problem with is trans. That one is clearly a mental illness. That is because:

Trans have a near 50% suicide rate and you cannot attribute that to oppression.

Trans want to undergo genital mutilation and cosmetic surgery along with heavy drug use to be something they are not.

Those two traits alone, add up to their not being mentally stable.

 

[QP!]

The only one I have a definite problem with is trans. That one is clearly a mental illness. That is because:

Trans have a near 50% suicide rate and you cannot attribute that to oppression.

i already addressed the suicide rate and how that was also the case with gay males and that changed dramatically once the similar style attacks on them were reduced and they largely were allowed to pursue their own happiness.

Trans want to undergo genital mutilation

Some wish to have their genitals match their identity, yes.

I have no issue with a consenting adult doing that.

and cosmetic surgery

Cosmetic surgery is very normal.

along with heavy drug use

see the suicide example i gave prior which also corresponded with heavy drug use.

to be something they are not.

Or to be something they are.

Those two traits alone, add up to their not being mentally stable.

same was said about gay people for decades.

 

[CasualLurker]

what do you mean by this... "...it's an illusion to normalize them...."

Straight binary gender is normal. Everything else is an anomaly.
Gender confusion is not anybody's fault, and nobody should be mistreated because of it,
but it's clearly a genetic flaw. It's just "woke" to not accept that.

 

[QP!]

Straight binary gender is normal. Everything else is an anomaly.
Gender confusion is not anybody's fault, and nobody should be mistreated because of it,
but it's clearly a genetic flaw. It's just "woke" to not accept that.

I am just curious so do not take this question as aggressive.

Do you understand how evolution works and how mankind has progressed over time or are you of the Adam and Eve camp because depending on which will inform how we can address my next question?

Q : As mankind progressed via evolution and it was changing genetics and newly evolved traits that brought us to where we are today from a much more primitive past, do you accept that much of what occurred to get us here was due to "genetic flaws" that became 'tested', persevered via superior adaption and eventually became the new core base of genetics that began to be passed on?

Meaning that it is normal (within the norm) for anomalies to present and get tested. Some succeed and become dominant and the core if what then is considered 'normal', and others can fail, subside or just remain more niche (gay) but all of that happening is within the NORM of how humanity works and evolution works. it never just settles on the current majoritarian genetics and traits and there is always a push to test anomalies to test against that.

 

[zymurgy]

I am just curious so do not take this question as aggressive.

Do you understand how evolution works

do you?

and how mankind has progressed over time or are you of the Adam and Eve camp because depending on which will inform how we can address my next question?

Q : As mankind progressed via evolution and it was changing genetics and newly evolved traits that brought us to where we are today from a much more primitive past, do you accept that much of what occurred to get us here was due to "genetic flaws" that became 'tested', persevered via superior adaption and eventually became the new core base of genetics that began to be passed on?

Meaning that it is normal (within the norm) for anomalies to present and get tested. Some succeed and become dominant and the core if what then is considered 'normal', and others can fail, subside or just remain more niche (gay) but all of that happening is within the NORM of how humanity works and evolution works. it never just settles on the current majoritarian genetics and traits and there is always a push to test anomalies to test against that.

Evolution still operates, but modern human society has dramatically altered the selection pressures that shaped us historically.

Medicine, technology, welfare systems, contraception, assisted reproduction, and social institutions all allow traits to persist that might once have reduced survival or reproductive success.

So the mere fact that a trait persists in the population does not show that it is an advantageous evolutionary adaptation being “tested” for future dominance. It may be neutral, mildly disadvantageous, recurrent, or simply insulated from natural selection by modern society.

In other words, “it exists, therefore evolution preserved it because it was useful” is not a sound argument—especially in modern humans.

 

[QP!]

do you?

Yes. My prior post should have made that clear to anyone not just looking to be conflicting.

Evolution still operates, but modern human society has dramatically altered the selection pressures that shaped us historically.

Agreed.

Medicine, technology, welfare systems, contraception, assisted reproduction, and social institutions all allow traits to persist that might once have reduced survival or reproductive success.

Agreed.

So the mere fact that a trait persists in the population does not show that it is an advantageous evolutionary adaptation being “tested” for future dominance.

Agreed and i never said or suggested otherwise.

It may be neutral, mildly disadvantageous, recurrent, or simply insulated from natural selection by modern society.

agreed.

In other words, “it exists, therefore evolution preserved it because it was useful” is not a sound argument—especially in modern humans.

Good thing i never made that argument then, right?

My point is simply it is NORMAL and within the norm, for such traits to present. That modern society might make them persevere beyond what they might have without the insulation of certain pressures is not what i was addressing.

 

[zymurgy]

Yes. My prior post should have made that clear to anyone not just looking to be conflicting.


Agreed.

Agreed.


Agreed and i never said or suggested otherwise.

agreed.

Good thing i never made that argument then, right?

My point is simply it is NORMAL and within the norm, for such traits to present. That modern society might make them persevere beyond what they might have without the insulation of certain pressures is not what i was addressing.

That is a much narrower claim than the one you started with.

You originally said these variants are evolutionary responses that “test” the majority population and can persist through superior adaptation and eventually benefit the broader population.

Now you are saying only that variation itself is normal and naturally occurs.

Those are not the same claim. If your position is merely “human populations contain variation,” then there is nothing to argue about. But that does not establish that any particular variation is adaptive, beneficial, or something society must treat as a social norm.

 

[QP!]

That is a much narrower claim than the one you started with.

No read it again, you widened my premise beyond what is there with your assumption. my point is EXACTLY where i started.

You originally said these variants are evolutionary responses that “test” the majority population and can persist through superior adaptation and eventually benefit the broader population.

^ that is accurate to what i said. What i DID NOT DO is conclude any singular example is succeeding at this test (other than my 'risk taker' example). Just that they test. Within a test 'failure' or 'neutral' is also an option that could see a trait endure or disappear. But the purpose of the test it seek the benefits that might then endure and continue on.

Now you are saying only that variation itself is normal and naturally occurs.

Quote me saying otherwise.

Those are not the same claim.

Correct the claim you are trying to expand mine to is not the same as the one i presented. You are straw manning my argument and then arguing against that.

If your position is merely “human populations contain variation,” then there is nothing to argue about.

Agreed which is what i said.

But that does not establish that any particular variation is adaptive, beneficial,

I NEVER claimed any specific variation was beneficial (outside 'risk taker'). i did claim evolution tests for beneficial ones via variation. That test does not always find success and i never said it did.

or something society must treat as a social norm.

My point is that to demonize something that is within the NORM and EXPECTATIONS of societal evolution as WRONG when it is within the biological and evolutionary norm, and not to instead accept that we should expect it and not demonize it, is what is WRONG.

 

[Diogenes]

https://twitter.com/x/status/2092613718005661704

View: https://x.com/KingBobIIV/status/2092613718005661704?s=20

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MCHvgVAMfbo
​

 

[zymurgy]

No read it again, you widened my premise beyond what is there with your assumption. my point is EXACTLY where i started.

^ that is accurate to what i said. What i DID NOT DO is conclude any singular example is succeeding at this test (other than my 'risk taker' example). Just that they test. Within a test 'failure' or 'neutral' is also an option that could see a trait endure or disappear. But the purpose of the test it seek the benefits that might then endure and continue on.


Quote me saying otherwise.

Correct the claim you are trying to expand mine to is not the same as the one i presented. You are straw manning my argument and then arguing against that.


Agreed which is what i said.

I NEVER claimed any specific variation was beneficial (outside 'risk taker'). i did claim evolution tests for beneficial ones via variation. That test does not always find success and i never said it did.


My point is that to demonize something that is within the NORM and EXPECTATIONS of societal evolution as WRONG when it is within the biological and evolutionary norm, and not to instead accept that we should expect it and not demonize it, is what is WRONG.

You just stated the distinction I’ve been making. “This variation is biologically expected to occur” is a descriptive claim. “Therefore society is wrong to judge it negatively” is a normative claim. The second does not follow from the first. Evolution explains what occurs; it does not determine what society ought to consider acceptable.

I boiled your rambling thesis down in my first reply and rejected it - we are just spinning in circles now:

"“Natural variation” doesn’t settle the policy questions. Society still sets rules around privacy, consent, boundaries, and competing rights."

 

[QP!]

You just stated the distinction I’ve been making. “This variation is biologically expected to occur” is a descriptive claim. “Therefore society is wrong to judge it negatively” is a normative claim. The second does not follow from the first. Evolution explains what occurs; it does not determine what society ought to consider acceptable.

Again stop stuffing strawmen and try to comprehend what you read.,

When i say society is 'wrong to judge it negatively' i am speaking of the OCCURANCE of an anomaly and not the specifics. One should EXPECT anomalies to occur and thus accept that as NORMAL when they do.

I am not arguing Cancer occurring has to not be judged but rather that you should EXPECT and not judge that it occurs as the wrong.

I am addressing the often pushed position that trans people should not exist and their very existence is some sort of offense.

I am not getting into the subjective of whether zymurgy or person XYZ thinks of it because i see no point in that just as arguing with people currently why gay people should or should not exist or have rights is kind of pointless. Each person will have a subjective view regardless.

My point is a important layer up from that an argument that people SHOULD accept such anomalies will emerge and accept that as normal. Not just label them as abhorrent based on their existence which a lot do here.

 

[zymurgy]

Again stop stuffing strawmen and try to comprehend what you read.,

When i say society is 'wrong to judge it negatively' i am speaking of the OCCURANCE of an anomaly and not the specifics. One should EXPECT anomalies to occur and thus accept that as NORMAL when they do.

I am not arguing Cancer occurring has to not be judged but rather that you should EXPECT and not judge that it occurs as the wrong.

I am addressing the often pushed position that trans people should not exist and their very existence is some sort of offense.

I am not getting into the subjective of whether zymurgy or person XYZ thinks of it because i see no point in that just as arguing with people currently why gay people should or should not exist or have rights is kind of pointless. Each person will have a subjective view regardless.

My point is a important layer up from that an argument that people SHOULD accept such anomalies will emerge and accept that as normal. Not just label them as abhorrent based on their existence which a lot do here.

It is not a straw man when I am responding to the conclusion you actually wrote. You said it is “WRONG” to judge something negatively when it falls within biological/evolutionary variation. I pointed out that the biological fact of variation does not, by itself, establish that normative conclusion.

You have now clarified that you mean only that the mere occurrence or existence of an anomaly should not be condemned. Fine. I was never arguing that atypical human traits should not occur or that someone’s mere existence is offensive.

My objection was, and still is, much narrower: “natural variation” does not settle the downstream social and policy questions. Privacy, consent, boundaries, competing rights, sports, medicine, and similar issues still have to be argued on their own merits.

And that is entirely consistent with my very first reply to you: “Natural variation doesn’t settle the policy questions. Society still sets rules around privacy, consent, boundaries, and competing rights.”

My position has been consistent from the start. Yours has required repeated clarification and narrowing.

 

[Jerry Mathers]

Variants in the norm are evolutionary responses to always test the majoritarian population but also to provide minority populations who might think and do things differently that ends up benefitting the majority population.

or they're retarded and mongoloid.

 

[Jerry Mathers]

Variants in the norm are evolutionary responses to always test the majoritarian population but also to provide minority populations who might think and do things differently that ends up benefitting the majority population.

or they're retarded mongoloid Zionists.