/ratanon/ - Rationalists Anonymous

I'm guessing gay/straight is more innate than cis/trans is more innate than dom/sub.

 >>/5773/
> gay/straight is more innate than cis/trans
highly contentious IMO given the twin study results (twin concordance ratios are pretty similar for a gay twin and a trans twin, while base rates in the population differ by a factor of 5-10). I assume you're working off the fact that transness appears to have spiked in the past 10 years while gayness hasn't, but there are other ways of looking at that.

Transmen are almost exactly as rare as dominant women.
Submissive men are almost exactly as common as transwomen.

You know this to be true, and you know why it's true.

 >>/5779/
does the fact that the vast majority of BOTH types of tranners are subs make FTMs less valid than MTFs? (I'd argue that it doesn't.)

False premise, none of those are innate.

 >>/5787/
gayness isn't as innate as height or IQ or schizophrenia, but it's still heavily innate. pretty much any trait you can think of will be genetically influenced somehow. of course that includes GxE interactions…

 >>/5779/
I know both of those are true, but I don't know why. If you have found the answer, care to share?

 >>/5775/
> I assume you're working off the fact that transness appears to have spiked in the past 10 years while gayness hasn't
Yes. It's interesting whether there has been a comparable dom/sub/both spike. It could have happened without anyone really noticing, since dominance/submission is a more vague and private matter.
> but there are other ways of looking at that.
Please elaborate.

Potential evidence against: switch-hacking probably has much higher success rates than bi-hacking.

 >>/5788/
"Being gay is an innate genetic trait" is just something straight people tell themselves to make a firm distinction between themselves and those weird people who like the same sex. Straight people just don't want to accept the reality that there's no real difference between their fetish for the opposite sex, and a gay person's fetish for the same sex.

The reality is much more likely to be that some basic notions of attraction - health, status, things like that - are the only genetically inherent thing; and they're interpreted through a lens created by your environment as well as your other general personality traits like openness and neuroticism, which can be genetic. That gives you this whole "gay and straight" thing, as well as the rest of the vast diversity of sexual expression in existence.

Face it straightfags, a bland sexual life and a bland personality are two sides of the same coin.

t. hot take taker

 >>/5813/
non-reproductive fetishism is deviance. heterosexual reproduction is the opposite of deviant.

gays use their "gayness" as a personality and sole identifier, because psychologically broken and empty people that define themselves by their otherness.

 >>/5842/
Non-reproductive heterosexual sex is really common in humans. Women have a sex drive even if they aren't ovulating. You can be against that morally, but "deviant" seems wrong empirically.
> gays use their "gayness" as a personality and sole identifier
Pretty much nobody does that. Some people turn it into an important part of their identity, but that's rare outside of social justice activism culture, and most homosexuals are outside social justice activism culture.
Signaling it can be useful socially, much in the way that married people often signal that they're married, so it can end up as a small part of their identity.

 >>/5843/
you're wrongly conflating "recreational sex" and "deviant sex fetishes that stimulate maladjusted psyches"

being into scat and leather is deviant, empirically. they are real outliers. most fetishists pursue this manner of sex because of the naughty factor of going against social norms and the risk of persecution. once they are "normalised" they no longer have that naughty factor and no longer appeal to people with fetishistic tendencies. 

gay marriage was legalised in US of A yet the gay marriage rate didnt spike that high because the appealing nature of deviance was instantly dissolved

 >>/5848/
> gay marriage was legalised in US of A yet the gay marriage rate didnt spike that high because the appealing nature of deviance was instantly dissolved
That's just because we are being sistematically being lied to about the prevalence of homosexuality. Never mind the 10% lie, or the 5% lie. It's more like 1.5 to 2%.

 >>/5881/
Why? Which incentives are at work here?
Are you taking into account that there are currently still good reasons for homosexuals to pretend they aren't homosexual?

 >>/5842/
 >>/5848/
I'm a deviant with a maladjusted psyche who defines myself by my otherness relative to normies, and I think most rats and adjacents are also that. How does your theory account for lesswrongers not being much, much gayer than we currently are?

 >>/5813/
How is a basic genetic attraction wired to point at the same instead of the opposite gender a bigger difference than a bundle of genetic attractions and environmental effects that cash out to an attraction pointing at the same instead of the opposite gender? It's the same shit you're just applying one layer of reductionism and calling the result "no real difference".

 >>/5884/
> How does your theory account for lesswrongers not being much, much gayer than we currently are?
The average SSC survey participant is an almost-normalfag blue tribe "geek" now. As for the average ratanon, he isn't much, much gayer than he currently is because that is impossible. I refer you to  >>/4970/.

 >>/5889/
> The average SSC survey participant is an almost-normalfag blue tribe "geek" now.
I wouldn't be so sure about that. The outgroup is not homogenous.
> As for the average ratanon, he isn't much, much gayer than he currently is because that is impossible. I refer you to  >>/4970/.
AGPs tend to be gynephilic. I don't think that poll says much about gayness, other than the two people who voted "would be a gay femboy given luck and better tech".

 >>/5889/
> The average SSC survey participant is an almost-normalfag blue tribe "geek" now.
Just like Scott then.

 >>/5893/
Scott's attempts to signal that he is blue tribe fall increasingly short, and you can't blame the blue tribe drifting farther left for all of it.

 >>/5894/
> Scott's attempts to signal that he is blue tribe fall increasingly short
How?

 >>/5765/
Hot take: all of these things are learned behaviors, but people differ in their innate propensities for learning them.

 >>/5898/
That is the coldest fucking take, it's just a particular framing/rephrasing of "everything is 50% genetic, 50% environmental".

 >>/5779/
> Submissive men are almost exactly as common as transwomen.
This seems clearly and obviously false if you judge by the amount of content aimed at submissive men that has and doesn't have a feminization element. Somewhat surprisingly, not every male sub wants to be mommy's little girl.

 >>/5799/
Likely.