Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
Homosexuality and The Pill
Topic Started: Sep 11 2017, 04:52 PM (437 Views)
Jolly
Member Avatar
Geaux Tigers!
Wonder if this deserves a bit more research?...

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2017/09/birth_control_and_homosexuality_unintended_consequences.html
The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States.- George Soros
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mikhailoh
Member Avatar
If you want trouble, find yourself a redhead
We are a beautiful but suicidal species.
Once in his life, every man is entitled to fall madly in love with a gorgeous redhead - Lucille Ball
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Axtremus
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
As a species, we figured out population control without starving or rushing off a cliff en masse. That's good.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Aqua Letifer
Member Avatar
ZOOOOOM!
Quote:
 
The media now shows homosexuality as a heroic choice.


The complete opposite is true.
I cite irreconcilable differences.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mikhailoh
Member Avatar
If you want trouble, find yourself a redhead
Axtremus
Sep 12 2017, 04:25 AM
As a species, we figured out population control without starving or rushing off a cliff en masse. That's good.
It is sad that you really believe that.
Once in his life, every man is entitled to fall madly in love with a gorgeous redhead - Lucille Ball
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
George K
Member Avatar
Finally
Axtremus
Sep 12 2017, 04:25 AM
As a species, we figured out population control without starving or rushing off a cliff en masse. That's good.
Paul Ehrlich wept (again).
A guide to GKSR: Click

"Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... "
- Mik, 6/14/08


Nothing is as effective as homeopathy.

I'd rather listen to an hour of Abba than an hour of The Beatles.
- Klaus, 4/29/18
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
John D'Oh
Member Avatar
MAMIL
The article's very heavy on assumption and anecdote, and a tad light on actual data.

Plus, at the risk of stating the bloody obvious, he's not exactly approaching this topic with an open mind.
What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jolly
Member Avatar
Geaux Tigers!
John D'Oh
Sep 12 2017, 04:56 AM
The article's very heavy on assumption and anecdote, and a tad light on actual data.

Plus, at the risk of stating the bloody obvious, he's not exactly approaching this topic with an open mind.
Perhaps not, which is why I initially posted that maybe there is something there. Something is happening. Sperm counts are down in males, especially Western males. Homosexuality is more prevalent than before.

Therefore, wonder if anybody has really, seriously taken a look at the numbers and tried to produce evidence for a link? OTOH, the rationale that Big Pharma would suppress such a side effect, considering the $$$ at stake, would not surprise me.
The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States.- George Soros
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Klaus
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Mikhailoh
Sep 12 2017, 04:46 AM
Axtremus
Sep 12 2017, 04:25 AM
As a species, we figured out population control without starving or rushing off a cliff en masse. That's good.
It is sad that you really believe that.
Hu? What's wrong with (or sad about) Ax' statement?

You believe that the world would be a better place without the pill or what?

And, GK, what does this have to do with Ehrlich?
Trifonov Fleisher Klaus Sokolov Zimmerman
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Klaus
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Also, let's assume for the sake of the argument, that the pill does indeed increase the chance of a child being homosexual (even though it sounds to me like that hypothesis is BS, i.e. not supported by actual data).

How is this somehow ethically different from any other side effect of other drugs? If a drug has unwanted side effects, then we either have to live with the side effect or we invent better drugs that don't have that side effect.

Also, calling our species "suicidal" given the development of the world's population is rather ludicrous.

Given the source of the article and the poster (Jolly), it is obvious that this article is somehow supposed to be an attack on liberal/progressive values, but it fails so miserably at making a point that I really wonder why anyone would post it.

Oh, and Jolly, considering your own finding of a correlation between the prevalence of homosexuality and "something", you may find this graph helpful:
Posted Image
Trifonov Fleisher Klaus Sokolov Zimmerman
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jolly
Member Avatar
Geaux Tigers!
Klaus
Sep 12 2017, 06:20 AM
Also, let's assume for the sake of the argument, that the pill does indeed increase the chance of a child being homosexual (even though it sounds to me like that hypothesis is BS, i.e. not supported by actual data).

How is this somehow ethically different from any other side effect of other drugs? If a drug has unwanted side effects, then we either have to live with the side effect or we invent better drugs that don't have that side effect.

Also, calling our species "suicidal" given the development of the world's population is rather ludicrous.

Given the source of the article and the poster (Jolly), it is obvious that this article is somehow supposed to be an attack on liberal/progressive values, but it fails so miserably at making a point that I really wonder why anyone would post it.

Oh, and Jolly, considering your own finding of a correlation between the prevalence of homosexuality and "something", you may find this graph helpful:
Posted Image
Given the essential nature that you are either a jackass or have a reading comprehension problem, please go back and actually read what I wrote. While the story is a non-provable anecdote, the data may suggest a connection, if the original studies do yield such information as proposed, homosexuality is on the rise and the link can be shown to be fact.

Do you know of any such study which can refute the initial hypothesis? Or any that can support it? If not, here's your chance for a multi-disciplinary research grant.
The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States.- George Soros
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
John Galt
Fulla-Carp
From the OP:

Quote:
 
But we should expect in another generation a noticeable increase in homosexual behavior, as they would be the second generation. As that was then still in the future, I was shocked.

This was told me in the mid '80s. By his reckoning, we should have seen a societal explosion of homosexuality starting around 2000, and subsequently. And, of course, we have seen such an explosion. His prediction came true.


Any data/studies to support his claim of the explosive increase in homosexual behavior?
Let us begin anew, remembering on both sides that civility is not a sign of weakness.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Copper
Member Avatar
Shortstop
Klaus
Sep 12 2017, 06:08 AM

You believe that the world would be a better place without the pill or what?

Teaching people to keep their pants on has a lot of benefits for society.

The Confederate soldier was peculiar in that he was ever ready to fight, but never ready to submit to the routine duty and discipline of the camp or the march. The soldiers were determined to be soldiers after their own notions, and do their duty, for the love of it, as they thought best. Carlton McCarthy
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
George K
Member Avatar
Finally
Klaus
Sep 12 2017, 06:08 AM
Mikhailoh
Sep 12 2017, 04:46 AM
Axtremus
Sep 12 2017, 04:25 AM
As a species, we figured out population control without starving or rushing off a cliff en masse. That's good.
And, GK, what does this have to do with Ehrlich?
https://www.amazon.com/population-bomb-Paul-R-Ehrlich/dp/0345021711/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1505227382&sr=8-1&keywords=Ehrlich+population+bomb
A guide to GKSR: Click

"Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... "
- Mik, 6/14/08


Nothing is as effective as homeopathy.

I'd rather listen to an hour of Abba than an hour of The Beatles.
- Klaus, 4/29/18
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Klaus
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Sexuality is a spectrum. Some people fall clearly into one camp, others are somewhere in between and may end up on either side, depending on their social context and life choices.

Making yourself known as a homosexual had a large price in the past.

These days, there's no such price to be paid anymore. Sometimes it's even an advantage to be known as homosexual.

That's a simple, logical explanation for a higher prevalence of homosexuality today.

It's of course possible that there are other factors. However, it's nearly impossible to validate hypotheses like yours in practice. Even if you'd take 50,000 women who do take the pill and 50,000 who do not and compare the prevalence of homosexuality of their offspring, you wouldn't learn anything from the data due to confounding factors (e.g. women who take the pill are more likely to be open to accepting homosexuality). A double-blind study is not practical. I don't see any way to get useful empirical data. Hence it all needs to stay in the realm of speculation.
Trifonov Fleisher Klaus Sokolov Zimmerman
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Klaus
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
George K
Sep 12 2017, 06:43 AM
Klaus
Sep 12 2017, 06:08 AM
Mikhailoh
Sep 12 2017, 04:46 AM
Axtremus
Sep 12 2017, 04:25 AM
As a species, we figured out population control without starving or rushing off a cliff en masse. That's good.
And, GK, what does this have to do with Ehrlich?
https://www.amazon.com/population-bomb-Paul-R-Ehrlich/dp/0345021711/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1505227382&sr=8-1&keywords=Ehrlich+population+bomb
And what does this book have to do with Ax' statement?

He merely said that we found a way to control population (which is merely a restatement of the fact that the pill works), not that the problem is solved.
Edited by Klaus, Sep 12 2017, 06:51 AM.
Trifonov Fleisher Klaus Sokolov Zimmerman
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Copper
Member Avatar
Shortstop
Klaus
Sep 12 2017, 06:45 AM
I don't see any way to get useful empirical data. Hence it all needs to stay in the realm of speculation.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/09/12/researchers-use-facial-recognition-tools-to-predict-sexuality-lgbt-groups-arent-happy/?hpid=hp_rhp-morning-mix_mm-researchers%3Ahomepage%2Fstory

Quote:
 
Researchers use facial recognition tools to predict sexual orientation. LGBT groups aren’t happy.

Privacy advocates have long warned about the potential for facial recognition technology to be abused. Law enforcement agencies and private companies already quietly collect and analyze huge troves of information on people’s eyes, facial structure and other features. In the wrong hands, some argue, such data could be deployed for a range of nefarious purposes, including spying and suppressing certain groups.

With that in mind, two researchers from Stanford University decided to study how well artificial intelligence could identify people’s sexual orientation based on their faces alone. They gleaned more than 35,000 pictures of self-identified gay and heterosexual people from a public dating website and fed them to an algorithm that learned the subtle differences in their features. They then showed the software randomly selected face pictures and asked it to guess whether the people in them were gay or heterosexual.

The results were unsettling. According to the study, first published last week, the algorithm was able to correctly distinguish between gay and heterosexual men 81 percent of the time, and gay and heterosexual women 71 percent of the time, far outperforming human judges. Given the prevalence of such technology, the researchers wrote, “our findings expose a threat to the privacy and safety of gay men and women.”

Now, however, two prominent LGBT advocacy groups are denouncing the study as “junk science.” Far from protecting the LGBT community, they say, it could be used as a weapon against gay and lesbian people as well as heterosexuals who could be inaccurately “outed” as gay. The researchers, in turn, have issued multiple lengthy defenses of their work and said they are the victims of a “smear campaign.”

The row started Friday, just as an article on the study by Stanford’s Michal Kosinski and Yilun Wang was published by the Economist. In a joint statement, GLAAD and the Human Rights Campaign blasted the research as “dangerous” and warned that its findings were sure to be taken out of context.

“Imagine for a moment the potential consequences if this flawed research were used to support a brutal regime’s efforts to identify and/or persecute people they believed to be gay,” said HRC’s Ashland Johnson, director of public education and research. “Stanford should distance itself from such junk science.”

The groups pointed to several limitations in the study that they said undermined its conclusions. For example, they said, the researchers didn’t look at nonwhite people, didn’t independently verify information such as age and sexual orientation, and examined “superficial characteristics” such as weight, hairstyle and facial expression. The groups also said they brought up their concerns with the researchers to no avail.

“Technology cannot identify someone’s sexual orientation,” GLAAD Chief Digital Officer Jim Halloran said. “This research isn’t science or news, but it’s a description of beauty standards on dating sites that ignores huge segments of the LGBTQ community.”

Kosinski and Wang released a pair of detailed written responses Sunday and Monday calling the groups’ reaction “knee-jerk.”

In short, they said, GLAAD and HRC didn’t seem to have read their work in full and didn’t attempt to understand the science behind it.

“It really saddens us that the LGBTQ rights groups, HRC and GLAAD, who strived for so many years to protect the rights of the oppressed, are now engaged in a smear campaign against us with a real gusto,” read a statement from the researchers. The groups’ news release was “full of counterfactual statements,” they said.

The study, which was peer reviewed and accepted for publication in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, found that an algorithm could differentiate between gay and heterosexual men and women most of the time using a single photograph. When the algorithm was given five images of the same person, the accuracy increased to 91 percent for men and 83 percent for women, according to the results. Human judges, on the other hand, could only get it right 61 percent of the time for men and 54 percent of the time for women — not much better than random guessing.

The researchers found that facial morphology, expressions and grooming styles were all reliable predictors for whether a person was gay or straight. They said certain gender-atypical features — including narrower jaws among gay men and larger jaws among lesbians — may be linked to different levels of hormone exposure in the womb.

Many of GLAAD and HRC’s concerns about the findings were addressed in the study itself, which discussed the limitations of the research, according to Kosinski and Wang. Only white men and women were used in the study, they noted, because they couldn’t find sufficient numbers of nonwhite subjects. They added that they tried to verify personal details such as age and sexual orientation, and dismissed criticisms that their pool of subjects was too narrow. Such shortcomings didn’t invalidate the findings, they said.

Kosinski and Wang also argued that their study had an important social value. They said they were concerned about publishing their results given the risks to privacy but decided to do so anyway to raise awareness about the dangers presented by misuse of such technology.

“We did not build a privacy-invading tool,” they wrote in a summary of their findings Sunday. “We studied existing technologies, already widely used by companies and governments, to see whether they present a risk to the privacy of LGBTQ individuals. We were terrified to find that they do.”

“Let’s be clear: our paper can be wrong,” the researchers added. “In fact, despite evidence to the contrary, we hope that it is wrong. But only replication and science can debunk it — not spin doctors.”

The backlash against the study wasn’t limited to GLAAD and HRC. Kosinski wrote that he received emails telling him to kill himself and comparing his work to the Holocaust. Others on social media were no more charitable.
Alex Bollinger, a writer at LGBTQ Nation, came to the researchers’ defense. In a post Sunday, he wrote that while the study was not a “complete picture of what LGBTQ people look like,” there was no reason to reject it outright.

The Confederate soldier was peculiar in that he was ever ready to fight, but never ready to submit to the routine duty and discipline of the camp or the march. The soldiers were determined to be soldiers after their own notions, and do their duty, for the love of it, as they thought best. Carlton McCarthy
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Aqua Letifer
Member Avatar
ZOOOOOM!
Klaus
Sep 12 2017, 06:45 AM
Sexuality is a spectrum. Some people fall clearly into one camp, others are somewhere in between and may end up on either side, depending on their social context and life choices.
You see if you ask me, we are heterosexual by default not by decision. It's just a question of who you fancy. It's all about aesthetics and it's **** all to do with morality.

To me, it's less important whether or not Hodge is right about his assessment of sexuality here, because what it implies about how we should treat each other in context to our sexuality is absolutely spot-on.
I cite irreconcilable differences.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jolly
Member Avatar
Geaux Tigers!
Klaus
Sep 12 2017, 06:45 AM
Sexuality is a spectrum. Some people fall clearly into one camp, others are somewhere in between and may end up on either side, depending on their social context and life choices.

Making yourself known as a homosexual had a large price in the past.

These days, there's no such price to be paid anymore. Sometimes it's even an advantage to be known as homosexual.

That's a simple, logical explanation for a higher prevalence of homosexuality today.

It's of course possible that there are other factors. However, it's nearly impossible to validate hypotheses like yours in practice. Even if you'd take 50,000 women who do take the pill and 50,000 who do not and compare the prevalence of homosexuality of their offspring, you wouldn't learn anything from the data due to confounding factors (e.g. women who take the pill are more likely to be open to accepting homosexuality). A double-blind study is not practical. I don't see any way to get useful empirical data. Hence it all needs to stay in the realm of speculation.
If we accept M&J as being in the ballpark with their 1-3% of the population being homosexual, and we see a jump to 6-7%, do we not have a significant increase in actual numbers, even given the deviance of the statistics? And since the initial anecdote is predicated on rodent testing, can we not replicate the data, if the data exists?

Now, if the animal data can be replicated and we see a rise in homosexuality that tracks the data in mice, can we start to do human studies with some measure of confidence?

Many have told me that homosexuality is not a choice, it is hardwired into the individual and cannot be changed. If that then be the case, there is no such thing as "a price to be paid", since that would suggest that homosexuality is behavioral based and not genetic or hormonal based.

Therefore, does that not make it easier to screen out confounding factors in a true double blind study such as you suggested?
The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States.- George Soros
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Klaus
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Copper
Sep 12 2017, 07:01 AM
Hu? I saw that study earlier, but it's about a very different issue, so it's not clear what your point is.
Trifonov Fleisher Klaus Sokolov Zimmerman
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Copper
Member Avatar
Shortstop
Klaus
Sep 12 2017, 07:16 AM
Copper
Sep 12 2017, 07:01 AM
Hu? I saw that study earlier, but it's about a very different issue, so it's not clear what your point is.

Give it some thought. I'm sure you could figure out lots of ways to get empirical data

The Confederate soldier was peculiar in that he was ever ready to fight, but never ready to submit to the routine duty and discipline of the camp or the march. The soldiers were determined to be soldiers after their own notions, and do their duty, for the love of it, as they thought best. Carlton McCarthy
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Klaus
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Jolly
Sep 12 2017, 07:12 AM
If we accept M&J as being in the ballpark with their 1-3% of the population being homosexual, and we see a jump to 6-7%, do we not have a significant increase in actual numbers, even given the deviance of the statistics?
But how do you measure whether somebody is homosexual?

Homosexuality is not a discrete property like your blood group.

You can ask people how they classify themselves, or you can try to determine the gender of the people they have sex with, or maybe do a few other things, but in all cases your form of measurement will be highly dependent on the social acceptance of homosexuality and the context in which these people were raised.

"Are you homosexual?" is a question like "Do you like cheese?". The answer to the question depends on a million factors, and it's very often not a clear and unqualified "yes" or "no". If the number of people who report a love of cheese would grow from 20% to 40%, the cause may be the new cheese ad from Shakira. After watching Milo build the wall I briefly considered to become homosexual (OK, not really, but you get my point :lol2: )
Trifonov Fleisher Klaus Sokolov Zimmerman
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jolly
Member Avatar
Geaux Tigers!
Klaus
Sep 12 2017, 07:32 AM
Jolly
Sep 12 2017, 07:12 AM
If we accept M&J as being in the ballpark with their 1-3% of the population being homosexual, and we see a jump to 6-7%, do we not have a significant increase in actual numbers, even given the deviance of the statistics?
But how do you measure whether somebody is homosexual?

Homosexuality is not a discrete property like your blood group.

You can ask people how they classify themselves, or you can try to determine the gender of the people they have sex with, or maybe do a few other things, but in all cases your form of measurement will be highly dependent on the social acceptance of homosexuality and the context in which these people were raised.

"Are you homosexual?" is a question like "Do you like cheese?". The answer to the question depends on a million factors, and it's very often not a clear and unqualified "yes" or "no". If the number of people who report a love of cheese would grow from 20% to 40%, the cause may be the new cheese ad from Shakira. After watching Milo build the wall I briefly considered to become homosexual (OK, not really, but you get my point :lol2: )
We must be able to quantify them somehow, as government is currently writing and enforcing law based on whether somebody is a homosexual or not. You can't have a protected class if you can't identify the class.
The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States.- George Soros
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Copper
Member Avatar
Shortstop
Klaus
Sep 12 2017, 07:32 AM

"Are you homosexual?"

It is a simple question.

The answer is yes or no or other and it can change.

Take all the people who say yes at a given time and there is your set of homosexuals.

What could be easier?

One reason to change your answer might be to take advantage of whatever protection is in effect at the moment.

When my company added benefits for "same sex partners" I tried to add my father to my life insurance. I was told I could not do that but never really got an answer why not. Jolly is right, by law these people will have to be identified.

The Confederate soldier was peculiar in that he was ever ready to fight, but never ready to submit to the routine duty and discipline of the camp or the march. The soldiers were determined to be soldiers after their own notions, and do their duty, for the love of it, as they thought best. Carlton McCarthy
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Klaus
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
How about just not having laws that say anything about sexual orientation?

Back when Germany had compulsory military service, it was quite popular to attempt to fake homosexuality because those guys were exempt from military service. It was rather stupid.
Trifonov Fleisher Klaus Sokolov Zimmerman
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
DealsFor.me - The best sales, coupons, and discounts for you
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic »
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1