[Hank]

Sexuality can't be 100% genetic, there are identical twins who share all their genes and one is gay and other is straight.

[Shortest Straw]

(01-14-2015 05:12 PM)Ocelot Wrote:  

It follows therefore that promoting neutral gender norms in the face of... the entire history of western civilisation... is probably unhealthy, and a destabilising influence.

Fixed it for you.

[Enigma]

(01-14-2015 05:12 PM)Ocelot Wrote:  

I've not heard this argument presented in the manosphere, so I don't know that it's exactly the dominant view. A more likely take is that humans are a dimorphic species and human civilisations evolved norms that best suited the respective traits of men and women, but our behaviour is socially influenced. It follows therefore that promoting neutral gender norms in the face of... the entire history of western civilisation... is probably unhealthy, and a destabilising influence. Likewise, homosexuality may be genetic, it may be caused by environmental factors, or a combination of both is possible. If there is any environmental factor to homosexuality, however, it should be a cause for concern, not celebration.

"So you can't have it one way or the other. Either homosexuality and gender, AND GENDER because it's the same thing, is a social construct or it's not. Pick one."

That is what we're arguing.

He clearly says in the early parts of the interview that gender is completely biological and people with a confused gender identity need psychological help.

He then goes on to say, quite clearly, that more people are gay because of the media's gay agenda, which is environmental.

However many shades of grey you want to introduce, he obviously does not think they're influenced exactly the same, which would mean that the argument "homosexuality and gender is the same thing" is not compatible.

Once again, I am NOT arguing the views themselves. I am arguing the logic he used to disprove her particular argument and that people specifically highlighted.

[Quintus Curtius]

When Roosh drinks a clear liquid out of these glass jars, like in the video, the first thought that I get is...moonshine.

[Sonsowey]

Homosexuality is quite obviously not 100% genetic or 100% environmental. Most complex traits have to do with genes and environment, of course.

His point, that it is nonsense for SJWs to say that homosexuality is 100% genetic but gender is 100% environmental, is of course a good one. He also suggested that both homosexuality and gender could be about 50-50, which is closer to the truth.

This study, for instance, found that of identical twins where at least 1 was gay, the other was gay in about 50% of cases. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1845227

They also found that simple siblings had about a 10% chance of being gay if one sibling was.

So there is some genetic component but obviously that is not the entire story.

[TooFineAPoint]

Is it fair to say that gender is genetic (in the sense that a man cannot become impregnated), and sexuality is fluid (in the sense that sexual taste and preference develops with time and experience)?

"Fluid" doesn't have to mean that there is no pre-disposition involved, just that it is changeable through environment, culture, and even personal choice. Example: a boy who is attracted to thin, waify blondes with whom he would like to gently make love becomes a man who is most turned on by olive-skinned curvy girls he can pound like a jackhammer.

But it seems to me if you say that gender is a social construct then it must follow that sexuality is 100% constructed as well... since now all semblance of character and identity are constructed.

[Bacchus]

Roosh, you did an excellent job on the interview by holding frame against an interviewer, who, while polite, obviously disagreed with a majority of what you were saying. But you did give her a sound bite. When she asked you about science and logic behind your worldview, this forum understood what you are saying but her feminist audience will not. She titled the article "A Monopoly on Logic," so she views this was the strongest point in her favor.

The section I'm referring to:

Quote:

[Angela]: Can you tell me more about your use of logic and science for your arguments? Can you tell me about the logic and science behind sort of your worldview?
[Roosh]: Yeah. I use logic and science.
*Roosh laughs heartily after staring Angela down.*
[Angela]: I mean, but can you elaborate? Because I mean, it's easy to just say...I mean I could sit here and say 'I know science! Science! Science! Science!'
[Roosh]:
Ok. Ok. Sure. The only thing is this: I believe that the only way to really use logic is to ignore the feelings that you have for one outcome or the other. If you have an emotional investment into a lifestyle and to a way of life that you've been taught for four years in school, getting a contradictory piece of information will cause your brain to either accept or reject. And what people do to accept something that goes against what they've learned for a long time, it's really hard because that means for thousands of days they believed in the wrong thing. But me, I don't know. I have a filter. I'd rather be right than feel good. I don't need to feel good. I don't need to feel warm and fuzzy on the inside that my belief system is ok. I don't care. If I've been believing in something wrong for 35 years and new evidence tells me that, so be it. You know, many times in human history scientists they believed one thing but a new experiment has shown:
holy shit we were wrong. But people nowadays, they go crazy if you show them a fact that goes against what they've been fed for years and years. So that's all.
[Angela]: So you're not emotionally invested in the arguments that you're making?
[Roosh]: No.
[Angela]: Ok!
[Roosh]: I am...you know if you can right now tell me that science really has introduced a gender number three and you can show me that, something in-between a woman and a man...like ok I guess then there really is a third gender! But as of right now, I don't think that data will be forthcoming.

(Aside: This data does exist and is in fact written about in SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN. Science, logic, reason.)

When she asked you about what science and logic is behind your arguments, fling studies in her face until she begged to change the subject. Bring up specific studies that support why the traditional model is better- equal marriages have less sex, older women have greater birth defects, promiscuous women have more mental health issues, masculine men and feminine women have more satisfied lives, etc. Speaking in generalities on this point allows your enemies to ignore that you're basing everything you've said on observable data. Don't give them a sound bite.

Overall, great work in the lion's den.

[shameus_o'reaaly]

Roosh, do you ever get contacted by past conquests?

[Barron]

An educated, self-assured female had her vagina switched on by interacting with a masculine man for the first time, probably in a very long time.

The key part happens at the interview's conclusion:
The white knight beta male that supplicates and panders, who will never get the sex he desires because of his own stubborn beliefs about sexuality, voices his frustration and humiliates himself in the process. We get to hear his faceless, muffled, low-volume voice At The End.

It's as if Ms. Washko caught nature's weeding out of weaker men on camera. Roosh, the masculine man who is projected in front of the female, taking up her entire field of view as she gazes intently, fantasizing about the alpha. Meanwhile you can literally hear Kyle's genetic line fading into obscurity as he voices his discontent in the background only as the screen goes dark.

That my friends, is art. However unintentional it may be.

[iknowexactly]

(01-13-2015 09:24 PM)TonySandos Wrote:  

I'm in the middle of watching it and I have to stop to laugh at her change in body language after mentioning of foreign women. She first became very shelled off; head tilted down, eyes lowered, mouth tightened. She then did here best to compete after an explanation was given; gentle rocking of her body, eyes were widest thus far into the interview, her mannerisms became more feminine, her head was up and catching my light on her face.

Observant comment, I love analyzing micro-expression, but I don't know what "shelled off" means-- is it angry? Discouraged?

[Kizman]

Quote:

[Kyle]: I wanna beat the shit out of that fuckin' guy.

   

[TonySandos]

(01-14-2015 07:53 PM)iknowexactly Wrote:  

(01-13-2015 09:24 PM)TonySandos Wrote:  

I'm in the middle of watching it and I have to stop to laugh at her change in body language after mentioning of foreign women. She first became very shelled off; head tilted down, eyes lowered, mouth tightened. She then did here best to compete after an explanation was given; gentle rocking of her body, eyes were widest thus far into the interview, her mannerisms became more feminine, her head was up and catching my light on her face.

Observant comment, I love analyzing micro-expression, but I don't know what "shelled off" means-- is it angry? Discouraged?

I mean that as her body language gives the picture that she's making herself into an egg; a psychological expression as if a person is preparing to guard against physical blows, but not certain on deflection... so it's definitely a discouraged subconscious movement. It's like the human version of a beat dog reaction, but to verbal stimuli only.

Rolling your shoulders forward, putting you head down, pouting your lip, lowering your eyes are what I consider signs of this.

[Days of Broken Arrows]

(01-14-2015 06:03 PM)Sonsowey Wrote:  

Homosexuality is quite obviously not 100% genetic or 100% environmental. Most complex traits have to do with genes and environment, of course.

His point, that it is nonsense for SJWs to say that homosexuality is 100% genetic but gender is 100% environmental, is of course a good one. He also suggested that both homosexuality and gender could be about 50-50, which is closer to the truth.

This study, for instance, found that of identical twins where at least 1 was gay, the other was gay in about 50% of cases. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1845227

They also found that simple siblings had about a 10% chance of being gay if one sibling was.

So there is some genetic component but obviously that is not the entire story.

When they did "gender reassignment surgery" in the 1970s and turned boys with botched circumcisions into so-called girls, those boys did not magically become attracted to boys. In other words, you can't turn someone gay by surgery -- even if you make them into a girl and tell them they have to date boys.

That leads me to my next point: male and female sexuality are two different kettles of fish (heh). Brains scans show gay men turned on by gay stuff and straight men turned on by women. But...women are turned on by a variety of stimuli. Their sexuality is more complex.

So when we talk about "influence" and the media, I think that goes more for women. Most guys tend to be pretty binary in their sexuality -- gay or straight. I really don't think you can turn most straight men truly gay or vice versa -- by truly I mean 100 percent gay, not "prison gay." I knew I liked women from a very early age. Hell, I still have vivid memories of the hot, busty elementary school gym teacher we had, Miss Goldstein. Our joke was that she got black eyes doing jumping jacks. Hahaha.

Finally, regarding there being more gay men now: I don't think that's the case. Back when I was in college I knew lots of them -- but they were closeted and sure as hell didn't "come out" in public. They're just more visible now, and that's the media's influence.

[Roosh]

(01-14-2015 07:23 PM)shameus_oreaaly Wrote:  

Roosh, do you ever get contacted by past conquests?

Every once in a while, but not that much.

[Yatagan]

(01-14-2015 03:49 PM)TheWastelander Wrote:  

Buncha Kyles in those comments.

They saw her interaction with Roosh, with her being pleasant and even flirty at times, and conclude she was just "stringing him along" because they can't accept reality.

It's just one dude who's saying that, which makes me wonder, is that guy some butthurt ex-forum member? Guy seems to be more emotionally invested than the usual hater.

[TonySandos]

(01-14-2015 09:27 PM)Days of Broken Arrows Wrote:  

(01-14-2015 06:03 PM)Sonsowey Wrote:  

Homosexuality is quite obviously not 100% genetic or 100% environmental. Most complex traits have to do with genes and environment, of course.

His point, that it is nonsense for SJWs to say that homosexuality is 100% genetic but gender is 100% environmental, is of course a good one. He also suggested that both homosexuality and gender could be about 50-50, which is closer to the truth.

This study, for instance, found that of identical twins where at least 1 was gay, the other was gay in about 50% of cases. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1845227

They also found that simple siblings had about a 10% chance of being gay if one sibling was.

So there is some genetic component but obviously that is not the entire story.

When they did "gender reassignment surgery" in the 1970s and turned boys with botched circumcisions into so-called girls, those boys did not magically become attracted to boys. In other words, you can't turn someone gay by surgery -- even if you make them into a girl and tell them they have to date boys.

That leads me to my next point: male and female sexuality are two different kettles of fish (heh). Brains scans show gay men turned on by gay stuff and straight men turned on by women. But...women are turned on by a variety of stimuli. Their sexuality is more complex.

So when we talk about "influence" and the media, I think that goes more for women. Most guys tend to be pretty binary in their sexuality -- gay or straight. I really don't think you can turn most straight men truly gay or vice versa -- by truly I mean 100 percent gay, not "prison gay." I knew I liked women from a very early age. Hell, I still have vivid memories of the hot, busty elementary school gym teacher we had, Miss Goldstein. Our joke was that she got black eyes doing jumping jacks. Hahaha.

Finally, regarding there being more gay men now: I don't think that's the case. Back when I was in college I knew lots of them -- but they were closeted and sure as hell didn't "come out" in public. They're just more visible now, and that's the media's influence.

I really need to keep working on the transsexual research I've been doing in order to enlighten us with more clarity on this topic. It's a tedious process to read up on so much academic work and studies dating back to decades ago. Making it concise while clarifying on the terminology and theories by different schools of thought on transsexuality is difficult. The majority don't even recognize the term transsexuality so much that autocorrect doesn't recognize the word even though being an acceptable description within my lifetime. Most medical studies don't count the cultural aspect deep enough to track these changes, so it's like excavating the internet to research this.

I have some appointments tomorrow then I'll be working continuously on this until I make some headway on it.

[Tex Pro]

Solid interview.

Recommend others to watch it instead of just reading the transcript. This interview was almost documentary level quality really. Needs to be seen and not just read to get the full benefit because this interview really showcases how broken the modern feminist narrative really is. It can't even stand up to basic scrutiny, let alone any serious debate. No wonder these SJWs are so adamant about shouting down their opponents: that is the only option they have. The second they let a real debate happen, their entire worldview comes crashing down like a house of cards.

Either way, keep up the good work Roosh.

[vinman]

Hey, who can put this on a t-shirt?
   

[Lucky]

(01-14-2015 02:31 PM)kaotic Wrote:  

[Roosh]: Mmhmm. Well let me ask you. Do you think homosexuality is genetic or not? Are you born gay? Can you learn it?
[Angela]: I do not think that
it's learned. I think that it's something that inherently somebody realizes that this is
their preference and that's what happens. But I'm not so I can't explain/claim
that.
[Roosh]: Now can I ask you one more thing?
[Angela]: Yeah.
[Roosh]:Is gender a social construct?
[Angela]laughing) In my opinion, just to make it clear...I think that it can be fluid. I think that society does influence it-
[Roosh]: OK! STOP! STOP! You can't learn to be gay, it's not social. But gender is a social construct. That is a contradictory. That doesn't make any sense. So what they're saying is homosexuality is 100% based on what your genes are, but gender is 100% in the environment. That doesn't make any sense!
[Angela]: I didn't say that. I said you're born fluid, I'm saying-
[Roosh]: What you said, and you are smart, made zero sense.
*Angela laughs*
[Roosh]: You contradicted completely. So you can't have it one way or the other. Either homosexuality and gender, AND GENDER because it's the same thing, is a social construct or it's not. Pick one.

This is a very important argument to remember and the answer is even greater.

The logic here is sound. How can gender be a choice but not sexuality? I suppose because it doesn't fit the narrative. I watched a few minutes of the interview, I downloaded the transcript to read later.

[Dr. Howard]

(01-15-2015 12:23 AM)vinman Wrote:  

Hey, who can put this on a t-shirt?

Hell, how isn't this someone's avatar yet.

[aphelion]

Listening to this interview.

Roosh, get your Internet feminist flag. She's ready to go.

[Krusyos]

[Gnu]

(01-14-2015 05:28 PM)Hank Wrote:  

Sexuality can't be 100% genetic, there are identical twins who share all their genes and one is gay and other is straight.

Although I would have dismissed the idea, I read some persuasive arguments that at least a substantial portion of male homosexuality is caused by an unidentified pathogen. So, there may not be a “gay gene,” but instead a “gay germ.”

[Sonsowey]

(01-15-2015 11:39 AM)Gnu Wrote:  

(01-14-2015 05:28 PM)Hank Wrote:  

Sexuality can't be 100% genetic, there are identical twins who share all their genes and one is gay and other is straight.

Although I would have dismissed the idea, I read some persuasive arguments that at least a substantial portion of male homosexuality is caused by an unidentified pathogen. So, there may not be a “gay gene,” but instead a “gay germ.”

I have read and posted about this idea too, but there is the question, why in the world would one child be exposed to this but the rest of his family not?

It doesn't seem likely to be a STD because many people come out as gay while they are still virgins.

If it's a virus that spreads like the cold, then how come the whole family doesn't get it, or at least all the boys, if it's perhaps only "male gay germ".

Lots of unanswered questions for sure.

[TheWastelander]

(01-15-2015 11:51 AM)Sonsowey Wrote:  

(01-15-2015 11:39 AM)Gnu Wrote:  

(01-14-2015 05:28 PM)Hank Wrote:  

Sexuality can't be 100% genetic, there are identical twins who share all their genes and one is gay and other is straight.

Although I would have dismissed the idea, I read some persuasive arguments that at least a substantial portion of male homosexuality is caused by an unidentified pathogen. So, there may not be a “gay gene,” but instead a “gay germ.”

I have read and posted about this idea too, but there is the question, why in the world would one child be exposed to this but the rest of his family not?

It doesn't seem likely to be a STD because many people come out as gay while they are still virgins.

If it's a virus that spreads like the cold, then how come the whole family doesn't get it, or at least all the boys, if it's perhaps only "male gay germ".

Lots of unanswered questions for sure.

Maybe most people are naturally immune to it and only a small percentage are not.

I read somewhere there's some tiny percentage of Scandinavians who can't get HIV. They're naturally immune to it for whatever reason.

It could be like a reverse situation of that.