Poll: How many straight birth-gendered females are on the Escapist?

[Paragon Fury]

It also is correct because it is describing the only possible viable path for reproduction for human beings - the only one that works.

Oh crap, I missed this before.

Seriously, PF, you've said yourself that you are against kids and even a partner having kids is a complete dealbreaker for you.

Does this mean you're abnormal, by your own terms? I'm really curious now, because you've offered a definition of normal that precludes not only me and mine, but you.

Is my sexuality abnormal? No. I'm still a male, who is interested in women. And my parts work just fine.

But yes, my dislike of children is abnormal.

 

[MrFalconfly]

You know what, how about I just say "boring", instead of "normal"?

Well then you'll have people who consider themselves to be "normal" taking it as a personal insult. Really thats the issue with general terms used in casual conversation, us humans take things personally so much we fuck up even basic language.

Well, people who only go on about how they did their taxes last week, aren't really the sort I'm scared of "offending".

Thing is, when I use the word normal (in these cases anyway), it usually looks like this.

Spoiler: Normal

Spoiler: Not Normal

And I don't see "Normal" as something to boast about. Normal is just failure to distinguish yourself.

 

[ThatOtherGirl]

It also is correct because it is describing the only possible viable path for reproduction for human beings - the only one that works.

Well that is just factually wrong. And I can prove it, I have successfully reproduced and plan on doing so again. Trans people have kids all the time.

 

[Revnak_v1legacy]

It also is correct because it is describing the only possible viable path for reproduction for human beings - the only one that works.

Oh crap, I missed this before.

Seriously, PF, you've said yourself that you are against kids and even a partner having kids is a complete dealbreaker for you.

Does this mean you're abnormal, by your own terms? I'm really curious now, because you've offered a definition of normal that precludes not only me and mine, but you.

Is my sexuality abnormal? No. I'm still a male, who is interested in women. And my parts work just fine.

But yes, my dislike of children is abnormal.

So are all giraffes abnormal?

 

[Revnak_v1legacy]

It also is correct because it is describing the only possible viable path for reproduction for human beings - the only one that works.

Oh crap, I missed this before.

Seriously, PF, you've said yourself that you are against kids and even a partner having kids is a complete dealbreaker for you.

Does this mean you're abnormal, by your own terms? I'm really curious now, because you've offered a definition of normal that precludes not only me and mine, but you.

Is my sexuality abnormal? No. I'm still a male, who is interested in women. And my parts work just fine.

But yes, my dislike of children is abnormal.

So are all giraffes abnormal?

If you're making an argument about context, then I'll point out that context was implied in Paragon's position as well. I don't think that he was suggesting that sexuality for instance, is a normal thing for a brick to have. The obvious trend of the thread, and the discussion was that we're discussing humans, and therefore appended to all of his posts you can imagine a little, "For humans". To do otherwise would be sophistry, and not a good way to approach the subject of expressing why people trying to claim the title of "Normal" might be offensive to you.

Giraffes reproduce through heterosexual intercourse but primarily engage in homosexual intercourse. The argument is to counter his argument that sex for reproduction is the only normal kind. It's not sophistry.

 

[9tailedflame]

I'd be willing to bet 95%+ of the people here and in general had their first experience with the word "Cis" not for a scientific use, but to be used as an insult against them or someone else.

A very specfic group of people seem to say this, and it's not exactly a surprising group.

I always find that its the same group that always object to what trans people say, feel and believe. 90% of the time they'll say that "tranny" and "******" aren't slurs.

So are we going to say that all that 'down with Cis'/'die Cis scum' stuff doesn't exist?

Oh sure, it exists, its just that its trans people complaining to each other about willfully ignorant if not outright hostile cisgender people who are making the lives of trans people unreasonably difficult. You know, an obvious overgeneralization made among a group of people who know that its an overgeneralization of an entire group and meant to instead being a shorthand for "assholes within this group of people I don't like". Something everybody in the gaming community is guilty of, given how tendency to ***** about AAA gaming and the people involved. I mean, when I say "Fuck EA" the poor bastard working customer service calls knows that I'm not talking about them. When somebody says "FucKonami" the custodians that clean the corporate buildings know that they're not talking about them. Besides, its not as if anybody actually does anything to seriously injure any of these companies. The worst that a trans person has done to a cis person is hurt their feelings for being ignorant or hostile sod.

And not a mild insult either - every time I've personally seen the word or heard of other people being called it, it looks as if its being used on the same level as "******" or "*****" - something that is supposed to be a very vulgar and crude slur against the target.

Yes, I recall the summer of 2012. It was a hot summer, simmering with anger and hate. I remember that summer quite well, as it was the year that a poor, poor cisgender person was hung from a tree by a radical activist lynch mob because they used a trans person's pronouns wrong by mistake. The local law enforcement turned a blind eye and when the federal authorities had to step in on hate crime charges, when faced by a jury of their peers, the all trans jury acquitted the leaders of the lynch mob. Its truly a dark spot on this nation's history. Even today cisgender people see an abhorrable level of discrimination and hatred from the heavily impoverished and silent .3% of the population. Truly "cis" is on par with the centuries-long instutitonal discrimination and persecution of people who are black or asian.

[sarcasm] Yea, because venom is always the best response to venom. Generalizing a group of people and hating all of them for what a handful of people happening to belong in that group did is completely reasonable and logical, and generalized revenge on a group of people for what individuals do is a great policy that never leads to anything bad and will make the world a better place [/sarcasm]

Hating a company is not the same as hating on someone for a gender identity. Prejudice is not OK, regardless of who does it, or how disenfranchised someone may be. Not to mention, claiming that one group is always and exclusively the cause of discrimination is not only itself an ironically discriminatory notion, but one that encourages people to not think about, see, or address the reality of the situation, because you've resigned yourself to a narrative, and not the world as it is.

There's transgendered people out there who hate other transgendered people because of insecurities, there's cisgendered people who are really supportive of transgendered people, there's every type of person in every type of gender/sexual identity/race/sex group out there.

Saying that it's ok to use 'cis' as shorthand for "those cisgendered people who treat transgendered people badly" is more or less the same as saying it's ok to use "blacks" as a shorthand for "those black people who commit violent crime". It's horrible and offensive. Now i won't blame an entire group of people for that action, but i really think trying to defend this kind of hatred like you are is fundamentally wrong. Even if the frustrations of these people are understandable, you shouldn't just accept that they've become hateful bigots, you should confront them about it, the same way i confront cis people i know when they're shitheads about it. Bigotry won't end bigotry, hatred won't end hatred. This should be obvious.

 

[KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime]

[sarcasm] Yea, because venom is always the best response to venom. Generalizing a group of people and hating all of them for what a handful of people happening to belong in that group did is completely reasonable and logical, and generalized revenge on a group of people for what individuals do is a great policy that never leads to anything bad and will make the world a better place [/sarcasm]

Yeah sure, because do as I say and not as I do always works, and trans people must always behave at a higher standard than everyone else. /sarcasm

Do you not see how that's a double standard?

Hating a company is not the same as hating on someone for a gender identity. Prejudice is not OK, regardless of who does it, or how disenfranchised someone may be. Not to mention, claiming that one group is always and exclusively the cause of discrimination is not only itself an ironically discriminatory notion, but one that encourages people to not think about, see, or address the reality of the situation, because you've resigned yourself to a narrative, and not the world as it is.

Expressing extreme exasperation and frustration with a group who is almost exclusively the the cause of your difficulties isn't outright hatred. See you're conflating someone being sick of how they're treated, fed up with it, and having a need to vent as being the same as a KKK member. The world doesn't work that way. When it comes to being resigned to a narrative, it sure sounds like you're saying that any trans person who is frustrated and complaining about cis people, is absolutely a hateful bigot. No, that's not the truth, that's being resigned to a narrative and holding someone else to standards you don't probably wouldn't be expected to hold your self to. Mostly because everyone vents when they're frustrated with some group of people treating them poorly. There's a difference. Holding trans people to a different standard isn't fair, it's a double standard.

There's transgendered people out there who hate other transgendered people because of insecurities, there's cisgendered people who are really supportive of transgendered people, there's every type of person in every type of gender/sexual identity/race/sex group out there.

While true, neither group represents the majority of either sector. Most people who are apt to claiming their support for vairous minority groups are only talk, in actuality it doesn't matter to the, because they don't have a "horse in the race" as it were. Most people who claim to be allies are only fair-weather allies, as soon as a group becomes inconvenient to them, they're gone... Not gone for ever, just gone until the current controversy is over. There are also far fewer self-hating trans folk, both proportionately and in absolute terms.

Saying that it's ok to use 'cis' as shorthand for "those cisgendered people who treat transgendered people badly" is more or less the same as saying it's ok to use "blacks" as a shorthand for "those black people who commit violent crime". It's horrible and offensive. Now i won't blame an entire group of people for that action, but i really think trying to defend this kind of hatred like you are is fundamentally wrong. Even if the frustrations of these people are understandable, you shouldn't just accept that they've become hateful bigots, you should confront them about it, the same way i confront cis people i know when they're shitheads about it. Bigotry won't end bigotry, hatred won't end hatred. This should be obvious.

Except that's not what's being said here, that's a false dichotomy. What we're saying is that we do what everyone else does, when we've had it up to our eyeballs in bs, we're gonna lash out just like anyone else could reasonably be expected to do. Saying that you never do that your self is having playing a holier-than-thou card, because basically everyone does it, it might not be against the same groups, but people do it. Expressing frustration with a group, any group, no matter how clouded by momentary rage the statement is, does not make someone an abject bigot.

Then we round back to "bigotry won't end bigotry, hatred won't end hatred" line, yet all the times I've heard people express frustration with the trans community saying: "Those damn transgenders are nothing but trouble!" Despite the fact that they're otherwise open and accepting of trans folk in all sectors of their lives... Again you're asking for a double standard, where us trans folk always have to be on our best behavior, never get angry, or frustrated, and never vent our pent up feelings. You're asking us to swallow all of the venom thrown at us without question, while the majority keeps getting it's free pass on such outbursts(celebrities not withstanding), that's a double standard no matter how you look at it.

 

[ThatOtherGirl]

I'd be willing to bet 95%+ of the people here and in general had their first experience with the word "Cis" not for a scientific use, but to be used as an insult against them or someone else.

A very specfic group of people seem to say this, and it's not exactly a surprising group.

I always find that its the same group that always object to what trans people say, feel and believe. 90% of the time they'll say that "tranny" and "******" aren't slurs.

So are we going to say that all that 'down with Cis'/'die Cis scum' stuff doesn't exist?

Oh sure, it exists, its just that its trans people complaining to each other about willfully ignorant if not outright hostile cisgender people who are making the lives of trans people unreasonably difficult. You know, an obvious overgeneralization made among a group of people who know that its an overgeneralization of an entire group and meant to instead being a shorthand for "assholes within this group of people I don't like". Something everybody in the gaming community is guilty of, given how tendency to ***** about AAA gaming and the people involved. I mean, when I say "Fuck EA" the poor bastard working customer service calls knows that I'm not talking about them. When somebody says "FucKonami" the custodians that clean the corporate buildings know that they're not talking about them. Besides, its not as if anybody actually does anything to seriously injure any of these companies. The worst that a trans person has done to a cis person is hurt their feelings for being ignorant or hostile sod.

And not a mild insult either - every time I've personally seen the word or heard of other people being called it, it looks as if its being used on the same level as "******" or "*****" - something that is supposed to be a very vulgar and crude slur against the target.

Yes, I recall the summer of 2012. It was a hot summer, simmering with anger and hate. I remember that summer quite well, as it was the year that a poor, poor cisgender person was hung from a tree by a radical activist lynch mob because they used a trans person's pronouns wrong by mistake. The local law enforcement turned a blind eye and when the federal authorities had to step in on hate crime charges, when faced by a jury of their peers, the all trans jury acquitted the leaders of the lynch mob. Its truly a dark spot on this nation's history. Even today cisgender people see an abhorrable level of discrimination and hatred from the heavily impoverished and silent .3% of the population. Truly "cis" is on par with the centuries-long instutitonal discrimination and persecution of people who are black or asian.

[sarcasm] Yea, because venom is always the best response to venom. Generalizing a group of people and hating all of them for what a handful of people happening to belong in that group did is completely reasonable and logical, and generalized revenge on a group of people for what individuals do is a great policy that never leads to anything bad and will make the world a better place [/sarcasm]

Hating a company is not the same as hating on someone for a gender identity. Prejudice is not OK, regardless of who does it, or how disenfranchised someone may be. Not to mention, claiming that one group is always and exclusively the cause of discrimination is not only itself an ironically discriminatory notion, but one that encourages people to not think about, see, or address the reality of the situation, because you've resigned yourself to a narrative, and not the world as it is.

Saying that it's ok to use 'cis' as shorthand for "those cisgendered people who treat transgendered people badly" is more or less the same as saying it's ok to use "blacks" as a shorthand for "those black people who commit violent crime". It's horrible and offensive. Now i won't blame an entire group of people for that action, but i really think trying to defend this kind of hatred like you are is fundamentally wrong. Even if the frustrations of these people are understandable, you shouldn't just accept that they've become hateful bigots, you should confront them about it, the same way i confront cis people i know when they're shitheads about it. Bigotry won't end bigotry, hatred won't end hatred. This should be obvious.

You know what the thing is though? The real kicker? I have never actually seen a person I know, online or off, actually say anything along the lines of "Die Cis Scum". Not one time.

Oh, it has happened. There was the one person who initially got mad and said some shit 3 years ago, and yeah, that was stupid and dumb and immature of them, maybe even bigoted, and the trans community largely condemned it. And I am sure there is the occasional tumblr or twitter post to the effect, but do you know what? I just looked through about the last month and 1, only 1, looked like it might even have the possibility of being a real use. Out of hundreds. All the rest were people using the term to mock trans people as oversensitive, overzealous crybabies.

It doesn't matter what we say. Because all it takes is one trans person somewhere getting frustrated enough to be a god damn person instead of a robot for 5 minutes and make a single mistake and we never, ever hear the end of it. 3 fucking years and still hundreds of tweets a month mocking that one time a trans person couldn't handle it anymore and said something stupid. I would love for "cis scum" to go away, but the people who claim to hate it so much are the people who wont let it die.

And we can't even say "we are just human" without someone telling us that we are enabling bigotry. We are held to a standard of perfection that we cannot possibly live up to.

I honestly don't know what we are supposed to do.

 

[Revnak_v1legacy]

It also is correct because it is describing the only possible viable path for reproduction for human beings - the only one that works.

Oh crap, I missed this before.

Seriously, PF, you've said yourself that you are against kids and even a partner having kids is a complete dealbreaker for you.

Does this mean you're abnormal, by your own terms? I'm really curious now, because you've offered a definition of normal that precludes not only me and mine, but you.

Is my sexuality abnormal? No. I'm still a male, who is interested in women. And my parts work just fine.

But yes, my dislike of children is abnormal.

So are all giraffes abnormal?

If you're making an argument about context, then I'll point out that context was implied in Paragon's position as well. I don't think that he was suggesting that sexuality for instance, is a normal thing for a brick to have. The obvious trend of the thread, and the discussion was that we're discussing humans, and therefore appended to all of his posts you can imagine a little, "For humans". To do otherwise would be sophistry, and not a good way to approach the subject of expressing why people trying to claim the title of "Normal" might be offensive to you.

Giraffes reproduce through heterosexual intercourse but primarily engage in homosexual intercourse. The argument is to counter his argument that sex for reproduction is the only normal kind. It's not sophistry.

That sounds suspiciously like a "Heard it somewhere" fact, for which I wouldn't mind some kind of source. Not that it matters, I'm not disputing the existence of homosexual behavior in many animals.

http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/8420/is-94-of-male-giraffe-sexual-behaviour-homosexual

Since the study seems to be behind a pay wall it's probably best to send you a source that analyzes it.

 

[Kai Drawwater]

Cool, I'm one of 3 (at the time of posting) transmen. I wonder if the other two are straight and I'm the only gay one.

 

[Revnak_v1legacy]

It also is correct because it is describing the only possible viable path for reproduction for human beings - the only one that works.

Oh crap, I missed this before.

Seriously, PF, you've said yourself that you are against kids and even a partner having kids is a complete dealbreaker for you.

Does this mean you're abnormal, by your own terms? I'm really curious now, because you've offered a definition of normal that precludes not only me and mine, but you.

Is my sexuality abnormal? No. I'm still a male, who is interested in women. And my parts work just fine.

But yes, my dislike of children is abnormal.

So are all giraffes abnormal?

If you're making an argument about context, then I'll point out that context was implied in Paragon's position as well. I don't think that he was suggesting that sexuality for instance, is a normal thing for a brick to have. The obvious trend of the thread, and the discussion was that we're discussing humans, and therefore appended to all of his posts you can imagine a little, "For humans". To do otherwise would be sophistry, and not a good way to approach the subject of expressing why people trying to claim the title of "Normal" might be offensive to you.

Giraffes reproduce through heterosexual intercourse but primarily engage in homosexual intercourse. The argument is to counter his argument that sex for reproduction is the only normal kind. It's not sophistry.

That sounds suspiciously like a "Heard it somewhere" fact, for which I wouldn't mind some kind of source. Not that it matters, I'm not disputing the existence of homosexual behavior in many animals.

http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/8420/is-94-of-male-giraffe-sexual-behaviour-homosexual

Since the study seems to be behind a pay wall it's probably best to send you a source that analyzes it.

That doesn't seem very promising, or at least, it seems to poke obvious holes in the notion. Exploration of the source, as much as that is possible, seems to indicate that it's not the case.

Spoiler

I looked up the sources mentioned above:

Pratt DM and VH Anderson. 1982. Population, distribution and behavior of giraffe in the Arusha National Park, Tanzania. Journal of Natural History 16 pp481-489

This article is about population data collected over a year of observation. It mentions there have been 22 births in that year, a low birth rate considering the population included 172 females. It says nothing about mating or homosexual behavior.

Pratt DM and VH Anderson. 1985. Giraffe social behavior. Journal of Natural History 19 pp771-781.

This article summarizes the authors' observations and statistics of social interaction in giraffes, collected in three separate national parks in Northen Tanzania, over about 3 years of total (non-consecutive) observations, more precisely 3264 hours of observation. They mention that they integrate findings from the '79 and the '82 articles in this summary article.

They say that sparring bouts, which usually involve "necking", when giraffes swing their necks and hit each other with them, sometimes included one male attempting to mount another. "We saw this eight times in the Arusha Park and eight times at Tarangire. In nine of these 16 events, the animal attempting to mount had his penis unsheathed. [...] In no case did a bull try to mount another male as large as himself. Intent observation and detailed recording of positions and movements failed to show that this act was an expression of dominance (which we initially surmised); we never saw any indications---e.g., behavioural, postural--of submission in bulls mounted."

The article goes on to discuss courtship and mating. It appears that it's very rare for giraffes to actually mate. The female is in heat only one day out of every two weeks. The males test females for readiness by sniffing their urine, but the female can choose who to give this data (by choosing to urinate or not when the male lowers his head to her rump). When a male giraffe senses that a female is in the right condition, they may proceed to courtship, which involved 1-2 days worth of following her closely and occasionally attempting to mount, which the female usually frustrates by just walking forward. When the female chooses to stand still, the mounting will proceed. The researchers note with some exasperation that over their 3 years of observation, they only saw one successful mounting, out of 46 courtship attempts and 304 urine-sniffing attempts. In light of the fact that in one of these years 22 calves were born as discussed in the previous article, they must have missed many - but of course they could also miss many homosexual mounting attempts.

Dagg, AI and Foester JB. 1976. The giraffe, its biology, behavior and ecology. New York, Van Nostrand Reinhold.

This book briefly mentions that homosexual mounting was frequent (no numbers) in one park where the number of females was unusually low, about 30%; in another park with approximate parity between the sexes, it was much more rare, and they only saw 3 attempts in 400 hours of observation.

"Necking" is not treated as homosexual behavior by any of these sources; they mention that necking is reserved only for males, and seems related to dominance relationships between males.

My conclusion from all this is that although it's arithmetically true that in 3 years of observation, the authors of the '85 source saw 16 homosexual mountings and just one mating, it might be misleading to summarize that as "94% of sexual activity is homosexual". First, the observation apparently missed the vast majority of matings, and probably of homosexual mounting as well. Second, the male giraffes seemed interested in much more coupling, but the menstrual cycle and female refusal combined to give them only incredibly rare opportunities.

Others point out that a 94% rate of homosexual behavior in any species would be unlikely to allow for that species to survive. In the end, I guess that I find myself objecting to your original post on different grounds. When you're trying to make a good egalitarian point, "Don't treat me like a freak, by treating yourself as the paragon of normality," you don't have to use bad statistics or angles.

Do I need to check for the most indisputable source ever first? I was at work, and was just going by what I remembered from a John Green video. The source I grabbed was found in the middle of my hundred and fourty mile drive home. Even if it isn't 94%, the high rate found in this study does point to an extremely high incidence of homosexual behavior in giraffes. I could also point to bonobos or different species of birds, but gay [animal] sex is not something I want plastered all over my search history. My point was that there are numerous species where homosexual behavior is extremely common, and I doubt he would ever hesitate to call them normal despite that fact. To split hairs over something like this is exactly the kind of sophistry you accused me of earlier.

EDIT: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mammals_displaying_homosexual_behavior

Here you go. Now I'm going to stop searching gay giraffe sex before Google starts assuming things.

 

[Revnak_v1legacy]

It also is correct because it is describing the only possible viable path for reproduction for human beings - the only one that works.

Oh crap, I missed this before.

Seriously, PF, you've said yourself that you are against kids and even a partner having kids is a complete dealbreaker for you.

Does this mean you're abnormal, by your own terms? I'm really curious now, because you've offered a definition of normal that precludes not only me and mine, but you.

Is my sexuality abnormal? No. I'm still a male, who is interested in women. And my parts work just fine.

But yes, my dislike of children is abnormal.

So are all giraffes abnormal?

If you're making an argument about context, then I'll point out that context was implied in Paragon's position as well. I don't think that he was suggesting that sexuality for instance, is a normal thing for a brick to have. The obvious trend of the thread, and the discussion was that we're discussing humans, and therefore appended to all of his posts you can imagine a little, "For humans". To do otherwise would be sophistry, and not a good way to approach the subject of expressing why people trying to claim the title of "Normal" might be offensive to you.

Giraffes reproduce through heterosexual intercourse but primarily engage in homosexual intercourse. The argument is to counter his argument that sex for reproduction is the only normal kind. It's not sophistry.

That sounds suspiciously like a "Heard it somewhere" fact, for which I wouldn't mind some kind of source. Not that it matters, I'm not disputing the existence of homosexual behavior in many animals.

http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/8420/is-94-of-male-giraffe-sexual-behaviour-homosexual

Since the study seems to be behind a pay wall it's probably best to send you a source that analyzes it.

That doesn't seem very promising, or at least, it seems to poke obvious holes in the notion. Exploration of the source, as much as that is possible, seems to indicate that it's not the case.

Spoiler

I looked up the sources mentioned above:

Pratt DM and VH Anderson. 1982. Population, distribution and behavior of giraffe in the Arusha National Park, Tanzania. Journal of Natural History 16 pp481-489

This article is about population data collected over a year of observation. It mentions there have been 22 births in that year, a low birth rate considering the population included 172 females. It says nothing about mating or homosexual behavior.

Pratt DM and VH Anderson. 1985. Giraffe social behavior. Journal of Natural History 19 pp771-781.

This article summarizes the authors' observations and statistics of social interaction in giraffes, collected in three separate national parks in Northen Tanzania, over about 3 years of total (non-consecutive) observations, more precisely 3264 hours of observation. They mention that they integrate findings from the '79 and the '82 articles in this summary article.

They say that sparring bouts, which usually involve "necking", when giraffes swing their necks and hit each other with them, sometimes included one male attempting to mount another. "We saw this eight times in the Arusha Park and eight times at Tarangire. In nine of these 16 events, the animal attempting to mount had his penis unsheathed. [...] In no case did a bull try to mount another male as large as himself. Intent observation and detailed recording of positions and movements failed to show that this act was an expression of dominance (which we initially surmised); we never saw any indications---e.g., behavioural, postural--of submission in bulls mounted."

The article goes on to discuss courtship and mating. It appears that it's very rare for giraffes to actually mate. The female is in heat only one day out of every two weeks. The males test females for readiness by sniffing their urine, but the female can choose who to give this data (by choosing to urinate or not when the male lowers his head to her rump). When a male giraffe senses that a female is in the right condition, they may proceed to courtship, which involved 1-2 days worth of following her closely and occasionally attempting to mount, which the female usually frustrates by just walking forward. When the female chooses to stand still, the mounting will proceed. The researchers note with some exasperation that over their 3 years of observation, they only saw one successful mounting, out of 46 courtship attempts and 304 urine-sniffing attempts. In light of the fact that in one of these years 22 calves were born as discussed in the previous article, they must have missed many - but of course they could also miss many homosexual mounting attempts.

Dagg, AI and Foester JB. 1976. The giraffe, its biology, behavior and ecology. New York, Van Nostrand Reinhold.

This book briefly mentions that homosexual mounting was frequent (no numbers) in one park where the number of females was unusually low, about 30%; in another park with approximate parity between the sexes, it was much more rare, and they only saw 3 attempts in 400 hours of observation.

"Necking" is not treated as homosexual behavior by any of these sources; they mention that necking is reserved only for males, and seems related to dominance relationships between males.

My conclusion from all this is that although it's arithmetically true that in 3 years of observation, the authors of the '85 source saw 16 homosexual mountings and just one mating, it might be misleading to summarize that as "94% of sexual activity is homosexual". First, the observation apparently missed the vast majority of matings, and probably of homosexual mounting as well. Second, the male giraffes seemed interested in much more coupling, but the menstrual cycle and female refusal combined to give them only incredibly rare opportunities.

Others point out that a 94% rate of homosexual behavior in any species would be unlikely to allow for that species to survive. In the end, I guess that I find myself objecting to your original post on different grounds. When you're trying to make a good egalitarian point, "Don't treat me like a freak, by treating yourself as the paragon of normality," you don't have to use bad statistics or angles.

Do I need to check for the most indisputable source ever first? I was at work, and was just going by what I remembered from a John Green video. The source I grabbed was found in the middle of my hundred and fourty mile drive home. Even if it isn't 94%, the high rate found in this study does point to an extremely high incidence of homosexual behavior in giraffes. I could also point to bonobos or different species of birds, but gay [animal] sex is not something I want plastered all over my search history. My point was that there are numerous species where homosexual behavior is extremely common, and I doubt he would ever hesitate to call them normal despite that fact. To split hairs over something like this is exactly the kind of sophistry you accused me of earlier.

I'm not splitting hairs, I'm calling bullshit. So yes, I guess you're eventually going to have to do more than just pull an unbelievable number out of thin air and then direct me to a discussion about how unbelievable it is.

Where did I make the claim it was 94%? I said majority because that's what I remembered. I couldn't even read the damn article because I was busy driving at 75 miles an hour and just wanted to make the reply and move on. Fine, go look at Hyenas, or anything else I linked in my edit. Are you ok with that, or do I need to find something super particular? You yourself admitted this isn't some rare thing, so I'm not seeing why you feel the need to keep arguing down this line.

 

[Revnak_v1legacy]

It also is correct because it is describing the only possible viable path for reproduction for human beings - the only one that works.

Oh crap, I missed this before.

Seriously, PF, you've said yourself that you are against kids and even a partner having kids is a complete dealbreaker for you.

Does this mean you're abnormal, by your own terms? I'm really curious now, because you've offered a definition of normal that precludes not only me and mine, but you.

Is my sexuality abnormal? No. I'm still a male, who is interested in women. And my parts work just fine.

But yes, my dislike of children is abnormal.

So are all giraffes abnormal?

If you're making an argument about context, then I'll point out that context was implied in Paragon's position as well. I don't think that he was suggesting that sexuality for instance, is a normal thing for a brick to have. The obvious trend of the thread, and the discussion was that we're discussing humans, and therefore appended to all of his posts you can imagine a little, "For humans". To do otherwise would be sophistry, and not a good way to approach the subject of expressing why people trying to claim the title of "Normal" might be offensive to you.

Giraffes reproduce through heterosexual intercourse but primarily engage in homosexual intercourse. The argument is to counter his argument that sex for reproduction is the only normal kind. It's not sophistry.

That sounds suspiciously like a "Heard it somewhere" fact, for which I wouldn't mind some kind of source. Not that it matters, I'm not disputing the existence of homosexual behavior in many animals.

http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/8420/is-94-of-male-giraffe-sexual-behaviour-homosexual

Since the study seems to be behind a pay wall it's probably best to send you a source that analyzes it.

That doesn't seem very promising, or at least, it seems to poke obvious holes in the notion. Exploration of the source, as much as that is possible, seems to indicate that it's not the case.

Spoiler

I looked up the sources mentioned above:

Pratt DM and VH Anderson. 1982. Population, distribution and behavior of giraffe in the Arusha National Park, Tanzania. Journal of Natural History 16 pp481-489

This article is about population data collected over a year of observation. It mentions there have been 22 births in that year, a low birth rate considering the population included 172 females. It says nothing about mating or homosexual behavior.

Pratt DM and VH Anderson. 1985. Giraffe social behavior. Journal of Natural History 19 pp771-781.

This article summarizes the authors' observations and statistics of social interaction in giraffes, collected in three separate national parks in Northen Tanzania, over about 3 years of total (non-consecutive) observations, more precisely 3264 hours of observation. They mention that they integrate findings from the '79 and the '82 articles in this summary article.

They say that sparring bouts, which usually involve "necking", when giraffes swing their necks and hit each other with them, sometimes included one male attempting to mount another. "We saw this eight times in the Arusha Park and eight times at Tarangire. In nine of these 16 events, the animal attempting to mount had his penis unsheathed. [...] In no case did a bull try to mount another male as large as himself. Intent observation and detailed recording of positions and movements failed to show that this act was an expression of dominance (which we initially surmised); we never saw any indications---e.g., behavioural, postural--of submission in bulls mounted."

The article goes on to discuss courtship and mating. It appears that it's very rare for giraffes to actually mate. The female is in heat only one day out of every two weeks. The males test females for readiness by sniffing their urine, but the female can choose who to give this data (by choosing to urinate or not when the male lowers his head to her rump). When a male giraffe senses that a female is in the right condition, they may proceed to courtship, which involved 1-2 days worth of following her closely and occasionally attempting to mount, which the female usually frustrates by just walking forward. When the female chooses to stand still, the mounting will proceed. The researchers note with some exasperation that over their 3 years of observation, they only saw one successful mounting, out of 46 courtship attempts and 304 urine-sniffing attempts. In light of the fact that in one of these years 22 calves were born as discussed in the previous article, they must have missed many - but of course they could also miss many homosexual mounting attempts.

Dagg, AI and Foester JB. 1976. The giraffe, its biology, behavior and ecology. New York, Van Nostrand Reinhold.

This book briefly mentions that homosexual mounting was frequent (no numbers) in one park where the number of females was unusually low, about 30%; in another park with approximate parity between the sexes, it was much more rare, and they only saw 3 attempts in 400 hours of observation.

"Necking" is not treated as homosexual behavior by any of these sources; they mention that necking is reserved only for males, and seems related to dominance relationships between males.

My conclusion from all this is that although it's arithmetically true that in 3 years of observation, the authors of the '85 source saw 16 homosexual mountings and just one mating, it might be misleading to summarize that as "94% of sexual activity is homosexual". First, the observation apparently missed the vast majority of matings, and probably of homosexual mounting as well. Second, the male giraffes seemed interested in much more coupling, but the menstrual cycle and female refusal combined to give them only incredibly rare opportunities.

Others point out that a 94% rate of homosexual behavior in any species would be unlikely to allow for that species to survive. In the end, I guess that I find myself objecting to your original post on different grounds. When you're trying to make a good egalitarian point, "Don't treat me like a freak, by treating yourself as the paragon of normality," you don't have to use bad statistics or angles.

Do I need to check for the most indisputable source ever first? I was at work, and was just going by what I remembered from a John Green video. The source I grabbed was found in the middle of my hundred and fourty mile drive home. Even if it isn't 94%, the high rate found in this study does point to an extremely high incidence of homosexual behavior in giraffes. I could also point to bonobos or different species of birds, but gay [animal] sex is not something I want plastered all over my search history. My point was that there are numerous species where homosexual behavior is extremely common, and I doubt he would ever hesitate to call them normal despite that fact. To split hairs over something like this is exactly the kind of sophistry you accused me of earlier.

I'm not splitting hairs, I'm calling bullshit. So yes, I guess you're eventually going to have to do more than just pull an unbelievable number out of thin air and then direct me to a discussion about how unbelievable it is.

Where did I make the claim it was 94%? I said majority because that's what I remembered. I couldn't even read the damn article because I was busy driving at 75 miles an hour and just wanted to make the reply and move on. Fine, go look at Hyenas, or anything else I linked in my edit. Are you ok with that, or do I need to find something super particular? You yourself admitted this isn't some rare thing, so I'm not seeing why you feel the need to keep arguing down this line.

...Seriously? Re-read your last post (before the one I'm currently replying to), it's not going to be a mystery why I didn't just say "Okee dokee!" and walk away.

Fine. I know nothing about gay giraffes. I admit it. I just commented on a thread in the off-topic forum with a post based on my extremely limited knowledge of gay giraffes, repeating a thing I heard somewhere on the internet. I'm am sadly underinformed regarding most gay animals really. I know they exist, I know they aren't rare, but I have a hard time pinning down examples and have better things to do most of the time than search for information on them.

However, given that I now have provided an extensive list of animals which commonly engage in gay sex will you accept my point and stop hounding me about my limited knowledge of gay giraffe sex? Not accuse me of sophistry the moment I mention it?

 

[Wrex Brogan]

I'm going to have to go with what another poster said;

I'm not going to use the word "Cis" to describe myself or other normal people. For two reasons;

1: "Normal" is a factually correct term for people who are born male/female and are interested in the opposite sex. Heterosexual people who are their birth sex are the overwhelming, crushing majority of human beings. It also is correct because it is describing the only possible viable path for reproduction for human beings - the only one that works.

Being trans or homosexual is a perfectly natural thing that can and does occur, but there is no way you can twist the definition or meaning of the word normal to fit trans or homosexual people no matter how hard to try, at least in the context of their sexuality or identity. Normal could be used to describe other things about them IE: their eating habits or intelligence, but not their sexuality.

2: The LGBT community poisoned the well on the word "Cis" from the word go. I'd be willing to bet 95%+ of the people here and in general had their first experience with the word "Cis" not for a scientific use, but to be used as an insult against them or someone else. And not a mild insult either - every time I've personally seen the word or heard of other people being called it, it looks as if its being used on the same level as "******" or "*****" - something that is supposed to be a very vulgar and crude slur against the target.

Its likely to never be an acceptable word to use generally because of the connotations it has already.

...my man, I'm going to be entirely blunt with you. If 'cis' is such an offended word to you, you seriously need to go out and educate yourself on Transgendered people. Seriously, getting all up in a tizzy about the term 'cis' is such an... ignorant stance to take. It's seeing someone mention something barely related to you by only the thinnest threads, and then getting into such a huff about it without actually understanding why the person is talking about it.

To echo all the transgender people in this thread (because hey, Transgender people know an awful lot about shit going down in the Transgender community), the use of Cis in a negative light is almost always (because there's always outliers) in a sense of 'I've had some shitty experience with non-transgendered people today, I need to vent' rather than 'DIE CIS-SCUM! TRANSGENDER EMPIRE FOR ALL ETERNITY!'. Comparing it to '******' and '*****' is such a disengenous thing to do, since the use of 'Cis' has nowhere near the same history, violence and pure, unadulterated hatred behind it to give it that sort of power.

And the normalcy argument is... such a bad, bad argument. People are people, you don't have to catagorize them as 'normal' and 'abnormal'. Just treat people like people (i.e. don't be an asshole), and if someone doesn't fit your pretty little catagories, then your catagories need work.

Besides, I can rightly claim that people who aren't homosexual, panromantics (I always get the pan- and poly- parts mixed up, I swear to god) with multiple partners are the abnormal ones. Normalcy is a very subjective viewpoint, and leveraging it at people never, ever works.

As a straight cis-male, I have a hard time empathising with other cis-men who think it's an insult. I mean, can it be used as in insult? Well, sure, what can't? It's just that I've run into so few trans individuals, especially in meatspace, that it's got no weight behind it, like a long-range nerf dart.

So, for me at least, cis is an accurate descriptor that just so happened not to be chosen by me. Then again, I'm a filthy gender traitor who can empathize with the frustration that created #killallmen after Operation Lolipop and thinks that the reactions to Male Tears mugs are both hilarious and justify their existence, so...

I dunno. Maybe straight cis-men should get some thicker skins. This is the Internet after all.
-signed, a straight cis-male confused about why he has a poll option.

The most dire insult I've ever been called was 'Duck', so everything really can be. Man, 5 year olds can be so cruel...

and as much as I wouldn't mind telling everyone offended by 'cis' to 'drink a glass of cement so you can harden the fuck up', I can't help but feel that'd be hypocritical of me, since I'm fairly critical of whenever people tell LGBT+ members to do the same. 'Get educated the fuck up' on the other hand... maybe that could work instead.