Buddhism (mostly the Theravada branch) recognizes four sexes: male, female, hermaphrodite, and anaphrodite. Hermaphrodite does not mandate dual sexual apparatus and the category includes: gays, transsexuals, cross-dressers, some variations of bisexuals, and, most famously, the Thai kathoeys or "lady boys."
Kathoeys are fully recognized within Thai society. Although they are required to participate in the military draft lottery, they are officially exempt from service. You will find kathoeys working in almost every profession, openly and without discrimination. Kathoey prostitutes are ubiquitous, especially in Bangkok and other tourist areas. Why are kathoeys kathoey? Not because of genes as is the wont in Western science, but because their body is simultaneously hosting both a male and female "spirit." (A deep exploration of the 4 Buddhist sex categories is needed to fully explain this.) A kathoey has 'access' to both of the spirits in his (yes this is the accepted and proper pronoun) body. In a deeply spiritual culture like Thai Buddhist culture, a kathoey is therefore a very 'auspicious' and honored being. A close approximation to Kathoey is the Navajo concept of a Nádleehi. The Cheyenne also recognized an official social role — the berdache that is similar. (You saw one in the movie *Little Big Man*). But a berdache is probably more of a response to the Cheyenne 7-year postpartum sex-with-a-woman taboo. There is a ton of interesting research on this topic that is generally ignored: by the christian right because it dares to mention sex and sexuality, by the scientific community because it is not "scientific," and by the 'woke' because it challenges their narrative and offends their sensibilities. davew On Mon, Jan 10, 2022, at 7:56 AM, glen wrote: > Right. I hope that's the case, not merely that some of us are more > plastic, but that perhaps any of us could even practice being more > plastic. But that's just hope ... hope can be debilitating. > > On 1/10/22 07:50, Marcus Daniels wrote: >> I meant that some people are genetically set up to be more plastic and >> dynamic than others, and one way this manifests itself is in sexual >> preference. If one finds a genetic signature for homosexuality, it could >> just be the deeper thing. >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> *From:* Friam <friam-boun...@redfish.com> on behalf of glen >> <geprope...@gmail.com> >> *Sent:* Monday, January 10, 2022 8:25 AM >> *To:* friam@redfish.com <friam@redfish.com> >> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] gene complex for homosexuality >> One of the themes I've seen talks about a slight correlation between the >> presence of homosexuality in a family with female fecundity (counter >> intuitive to those who talk about homosexuals having children). Another >> theme is that it's largely epigenetic; I suppose a slightly deeper in >> mechanism than Jochen's hormonal proposition. >> >> Both of those appeal to my sense that evolution doesn't separate lineage >> from ontogeny. There's no crisp line between organism and family, no crisp >> line between families, species, generations, or anything else, which >> approaches SteveS' third point. The selection is as "fractal" as the crinkly >> space in which it arises. >> >> I wish I were as libertarian as Marcus in this context, where we're all >> ideally plastic and dynamic. But my sense is not only that historicity and >> accumulation outstrip any plasticity, at least by our mid 30s or so, but >> also that there's no place for will or intention in most feelings of >> orientation. It seems people often feel fated or even trapped by their >> orientation. If it's plastic at all, its trajectory is at least chaotic, not >> amenable to reverse engineering. But, as Jochen points out, we're much less >> likely to engage in every speculation we could because it's such a sensitive >> topic. >> >> Thanks for all the ideas. >> >> On 1/9/22 08:30, Steve Smith wrote: >>> A couple of things as yet not obviously (to me) introduced into this >>> discussion: >>> >>> 1) Survival of the Fittest might better be Legacy Survival of the >>> Fittest. Evolution depends on successful *reproduction* and in fact, a >>> string of successful reproductions. I have a number of childless friends >>> who came from parents with large families... but who only had 2 or fewer >>> siblings themselves and have few if any nieces and nephews. Their >>> grandparent's "fecundity" has officially petered out. I'm not saying this >>> is a good nor a bad thing, just a break in the "survival of the fittest" >>> and an illustration that simply being good at spawning lots of children >>> isn't enough... they have to survive and then reproduce themselves, rinse, >>> repeat. >>> >>> 2) Heredity/Evolotion 101 in college made the point that the "selfish" >>> gene for men suggests that one's nieces and nephews by a maternal sister >>> are (closer to) guaranteed to share 1/4 of his genes than the (best case) >>> 1/2 for his own (presumed) children (worst case 0%). The same (almost) >>> logic applies to women who are childless (for whatever reason)... their >>> sister's children are a genetic legacy for them. Entirely anecdotally, >>> many of the (childless) gay men and women I know are pretty good aunts and >>> uncles... (though this can be explained many ways). >>> >>> 3) And of course, the object of heredity has shifted from the Gene to >>> something much larger, more fuzzy, and perhaps (much) more interesting? >>> What *cultural* traits might be positively correlated with being homosexual >>> or more aptly ambi/bi/pan/poly sexual? It is no longer exclusively the >>> case that being gay deals you out of being a parent (raising adopted >>> children, en-vivo, en-vitro fertilization, etc), so one's contribution can >>> be to a continued *cultural* or *memetic* legacy of a "way of being" which >>> is very Lamarckian. >>> >>> >>> On 1/9/22 3:15 AM, Jochen Fromm wrote: >>>> This topic is a minefield, because it is related like the controversial >>>> "race" term to the personal identify. Black people for instance score >>>> higher in 100m or 200m runs than white people as the data clearly shows, >>>> which means their genes somehow must give them more power for this >>>> particular competition. Still all people belong to the same race. As you >>>> know this topic is very controversial and precarious. For sex it is >>>> similar. >>>> >>>> There are genes for the two major sex hormones, estrogen for women and >>>> testosterone for men. Males have one X and Y chromosome, females have two >>>> X chromosomes. Therefore there are clearly genetic differences between men >>>> and women. >>>> >>>> Just how girls who are subject to estrogen develop an affection for boys >>>> is unclear. The same for boys who are subject to testosterone in their >>>> development. My hypothesis is that the mechanism works like "develop an >>>> affection for those who look the same but different" during the time the >>>> sex hormones start to work. Once they have a preference, addiction >>>> mechanisms kick in which tell the individuals to do more of that which >>>> they like. Something like that where the target of affection is path >>>> dependent and not completely hardwired. >>>> >>>> In general I would say that homosexuality is a byproduct of the mating >>>> process. This would explain why homosexuality continues to exist in >>>> evolutionary systems although these individuals have less or no offspring. >>>> Like coal power plants which produce CO2 and nuclear power plants which >>>> produce nuclear waste, the mating process produces losers who lost for >>>> whatever reason in the competition for mates and have no offspring. Among >>>> those some may pick a mate of the same sex, because the sex drive is hard >>>> to ignore and not completely hardwired. >>>> >>>> This is just my rough idea how it could work in principle. It can be wrong >>>> and it is a delicate topic. There are many books about the sociologal and >>>> psychological aspects of it. In the library I usually ignore them because >>>> it is not a topic I am especially interested in. Therefore my knowledge >>>> is incomplete in this area, and someone else here can probably explain it >>>> better. >>>> >>>> -J. >>>> >>>> >>>> -------- Original message -------- >>>> From: thompnicks...@gmail.com >>>> Date: 1/9/22 01:39 (GMT+01:00) >>>> To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' >>>> <friam@redfish.com> >>>> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] gene complex for homosexuality >>>> >>>> Well, first things first. Is there any evidence for a genetic basis for >>>> homosexuality. You can, of course, have a trait that it is chromosomally >>>> determined (if not genetically so) and still not heritable. Sex, for >>>> instance. Sex is not heritable. >>>> >>>> My assumption has always been that homosexuality might be influence by >>>> innate factors, but not be heritable. >>>> >>>> I haven’t read up on that subject for 2 decades. >>>> >>>> Anybody know any facts? >>>> >>>> n >>>> >>>> Nick Thompson >>>> >>>> thompnicks...@gmail.com <mailto:thompnicks...@gmail.com >>>> <mailto:thompnicks...@gmail.com>> >>>> >>>> https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/ >>>> <https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/> >>>> <https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/ >>>> <https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/>> >>>> >>>> *From:* Friam <friam-boun...@redfish.com> *On Behalf Of *Marcus Daniels >>>> *Sent:* Saturday, January 8, 2022 5:57 PM >>>> *To:* FriAM <friam@redfish.com> >>>> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] gene complex for homosexuality >>>> >>>> It seems like such a dumb question to ask. Why should any preference >>>> have a genetic basis? How about look for a gene that encodes a >>>> preference for plush carpeting or a preference for Flamenco music? And >>>> what about those men that like short women?! Maybe a man is kind of like >>>> a tall woman, on average? And why would anyone expect that it would be >>>> bimodal? If it were what would that tell us? One could imagine >>>> homosexuality is just one manifestation of cognitive or emotional >>>> flexibility. That by itself would explain why it is enduring, because >>>> those properties would give a person an advantage over less flexible >>>> people. Some fraction of the people with that property have heterosexual >>>> or bisexual relationships, and they reproduce and raise children that >>>> thrive. The rigid (heterosexual) types in comparison are prone to making >>>> the same kind of mistakes over and over and their children suffer for it. >>>> >>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>> >>>> *From:*Friam <friam-boun...@redfish.com> on behalf of ⛧glen >>>> <geprope...@gmail.com> >>>> *Sent:* Saturday, January 8, 2022 4:13 PM >>>> *To:* FriAM <friam@redfish.com> >>>> *Subject:* [FRIAM] gene complex for homosexuality >>>> >>>> I'm in an ongoing argument with a gay friend about how tortured Darwinian >>>> arguments are in accounting for homosexuality. He claims they're VERY >>>> torturous. I'm inclined toward the first mentioned here: >>>> https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-26089486 >>>> <https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-26089486> >>>> >>>> But, were group selection and/or cultural evolution a thing, then my >>>> friend would be more right. Anyone here have a strong opinion? >>>> >> >> -- >> glen >> Theorem 3. There exists a double master function. >> >> .-- .- -. - / .- -.-. - .. --- -. ..--.. / -.-. --- -. .--- ..- --. .- - . >> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn UTC-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam >> un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com >> <http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com> >> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ >> <http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/> >> archives: >> 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ >> <https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/> >> 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/ >> <http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/> >> >> >> .-- .- -. - / .- -.-. - .. --- -. ..--.. / -.-. --- -. .--- ..- --. .- - . >> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn UTC-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam >> un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com >> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ >> archives: >> 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ >> 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/ > > -- > glen > Theorem 3. There exists a double master function. > > .-- .- -. - / .- -.-. - .. --- -. ..--.. / -.-. --- -. .--- ..- --. .- - . > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn UTC-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam > un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ > archives: > 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ > 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
.-- .- -. - / .- -.-. - .. --- -. ..--.. / -.-. --- -. .--- ..- --. .- - . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn UTC-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
