Dear Ispo Fatso,

Indeed, I see no conflict between religion and natural variation.

I am not knowledgeable enough about it, but if as you say, nature (or God even) is working to help humanity overcome its overpopulation by modifying sexual preferences, then I am very glad for it.

You may speak about "gender" if so inclined (though I see it as a waste of time), but please just leave "identity" out of this whole business: our perception of gender is all in our mind, so is our emotional outlook, but OUR mind is something we have, not something we are.

You may for example be using a computer to comment here, but that would be YOUR computer, not you, its user: you cannot be identical to your computer. It is a big mistake to identify oneself with something you own. You may change your computer at any time just as you may change your mind, but that does not change you, their owner, in any way!

As I read through other opinions, I sometimes find them difficult to process.
I have realised that this is because we, the contributors, think in different ways.
The principles which underpin our thinking are not the same.
My principles form the basis of my thinking.
They control how I process and assess information.
They also control how I express my opinions.
Where principles differ, so will the way opinions are expressed.
I hope my principles are truthful ones, and that they allow my opinions to be understood.

Principles are like the foundations of a big building?
Without strong foundations, the building could collapse?
So with thought processes not based on sound and truthful ideas.
They are almost sure to deliver poor outcomes?
I think some of those who are in extreme mental distress must have an unsound way of thinking and processing information.
So the cure for many ills is to get back to serious and logical thinking?
Above all, base this thinking on truthful principles, not on fictional ideas?
Because 100,000 people think a certain way, doesn't make that a right or reliable way.
100,000 people can be wrong. Keep that in mind.

Regarding the comment on "the genetic basis of gender confusion".

Answer- Some Irony- Some put it as "soy makes gay". We know that testosterone levels during pregnancy influences the sex of the baby. Apparently soy mimics estrogen. This is similar to another thread where the concept of diet based power tactics was raised.

Interesting how this might effect social dynamics in societies such as China with high soy intake.

The breakdown of the family structure from the traditional extended family, to the atomic family, to the "modern" single female parent family- would seem to be a factor in the child's ability to model stable relationships between males and females. When you consider that Confucian scholars consider the family as "the atom of society", it also has implications for the stability of society itself.

Woke Marxism seems to use it's own twisted version of "the broken windows theory" of policing- ie. the more broken windows the better.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broken_windows_theory

It's easier to destroy than to create stability, that's why castles were invented.

It's interesting hearing the comments of Freud and Bernays on the madness of mass society, when they were a significant part of the cause of the breakdown of society. The attempt to integrate African American's into US society after the US Civil War in still in progress today. In a sense this attempt has just caused fragmentation and instability of the social fabric.

Woke Marxism seems to be like Sun Tzu's proverbial General without a Civil Ruler- only the next battle is ahead- it can only create destruction- eventually it will burn itself out- eventually there won't be anything left to steal or loot. Hebrew Libertarian "Ayn Rand" referred to Marxist's as Looters and Moochers (Thieves and Beggers).

Gender Theory seems to be another milepost along the road to the destruction of Western Society. Sadly it seems to be the very strength of western society that is causing it's destruction- and decay. We seem to have missed a principle, a step of logic, in the advance of western civilization. The ego rather than the thought of the west seems to be the source of it's instability. "Teach before preach" seems to be something the west should do more of- often teaching ourselves first. Experimentally testing society solutions ourselves before preaching to others what society should be. Marx couldn't even function without reliance on the foolish wealthy Engel's- what would be the result of a world based on such misguided principles.

Regarding science?

Professor Tor Hundloe reminded us in his - "From Buddha to
Bono : Seeking Sustainability," " In case we dismiss
religious intervention in science as a thing of the past,
be aware that issues which require radical solutions that
are likely to harm vested economic and political interests,
censorship exists today."

Back in Australia in 2006 - "leading climatologists with
the country's pre-eminent public research organisation
CSIRO were forbidden by the organisation's management
from publicly discussing the implications of climate."

"Management was acting on behalf of the government.
And Australia is one of the standout countries in terms
of human development status. It is not corrupt. Its science
is world class."

"None of this matters. In 2006, the Australian Government's
position was to cast doubt on global warming and refuse to
enter into UN agreements such as the Kyoto Protocol."

"With the release of the Stern Report on climate change
the the Australian Government's position had changed -
yet the Prime Minister remained half-hearted about a
commitment to global warming."

"Little has changed in near to 400 years when ignorance
and vested interests are confronted by scientific facts."

"While Galileo's and other wonderful discoveries
were being made, not much had been learnt by the political
elite in 2000 years since Socrates ' murder by the state.
New ideas, instead of being welcome for the opportunities
they opened up for the improvement of the human lot -
were threats to those who had become comfortable in their
ideologies (religious or otherwise)."

The Hudson Institute of Medical Research and it future findings
on transgender - will undoubtedly go through the same
process of denial and all sorts of bizarre
accusations. That's how the game is played apparently

Canem Malum,

No, soy doesn't mess with our testosterone or oestrogen levels. The effect it has on human hormone levels is insignificant.

The claim that soy can make men gay (or transgender) is a myth originating from a combination of our cultural perception that "real men" eat meat and misinterpretations of the findings of certain scientific studies.

The far-right and alt-right continue to perpetuate this myth.