I am a science buff and a fiction writer. I studied anthropology and many of the soft sciences at college and my father has a Masters Degree in Behavioral Psychology.
So, growing up, I learned about behavioral studies and was encouraged to experiment and explore the world around me. I was encouraged to be curious about the world, to learn and to express myself. I grew up in the 1970’s in the lower mainland of British Columbia and I went to an elementary and high school in the Canadian public education system, where I did a broad range of subjects and I continued my studies at college, university and I continue to read a variety of science publications ranging from archeology to psychology.
My work history has allowed me to observe people in a range of settings and most significantly, I have been a Federal Government employee, who’s work has been largely to collect, analyze and collate massive amounts of data.
I am also a writer of several formats and a graphic artist – so I am a lab coat and a art smock at the same time. Additionally, as a lesbian and atheist – I am not really bound by traditional thinking or social conventions.
With that introduction – here’s my drawings and thoughts about the impact of birth order, inter-generational relationships on sexuality.
Where it begins:
This drawing is an over view – at the top corner we have the biological parents represented with the 4 potential off-spring types – pink and blue circles represent heterosexual gender offspring and the purple circles are for queer/transgendered offspring with birth gender represented by the chromosomes.
The nurture factors are represented by colour lines.
The orange box represents childhood – the 3 colour line the sexuality/gender of the child, with gold representing the optimal ideal conditions being non abuse, house/food/financial security, a supportive environment where learning is encouraged and quality values taught – basically how educational, artistic, social responsibility, compassion/tolerance and other ethics are taught without children being limited to oppressive gender role traditions and being able to balance protectiveness vs allowing age appropriate decisions to be made by the child.
The purple box repeats this concepts as experienced in the teenage phase of development. Again, non-abuse, socialization with peers, age appropriate separation and individualized from parents and positive reinforcement of risk assessment, value judgements and sexuality development and access to education, arts, athletics and other social and intellectual development factors.
Females have an XX and males have an XY – and the Y is basically an X with one quarter of the sequence missing – this is why the drawing indicates females as 100% genetically complete and males at 87.% – this is just basic math – and in my view, why women are more adaptive multi-taskers and more sexually fluid over their lifetimes while males are more linear task oriented thinkers and hard wired in their sexuality.
In this image, I formula human life – all potential life begins with the egg – and the potential life is realized with the fertilization from a sperm delivering the other half of the genetics – either an X or a Y.
Now, as an aside, while a fertilized egg is the start of the potential human life, this is not a compelling moral or legal argument for the rights, bodily integrity or decision/self determination of the women to suddenly be suspended in favor of a mass of cells smaller than the period at the end of this sentence, and especially not in favor of the religious or personal views of anyone who is not the woman in question. I specify potential human life because there are many reasons why a fertilized egg may not result in a viable offspring.
This drawing represents the born and viable offspring – the majority will be heterosexual male or females with some minority percentage being lesbian, gay, bisexual, asexual and other rarer non-heterosexual in terms of sexuality as well as transgendered, gender outlaws and gender non-conformists – including hermaphrodites.
So our genetics give us our nature and what happens in childhood – does not remain in childhood, but is the nurturing basis that forms our personalities through our lives – how we deal with adversity, manage interpersonal relationships to our interests, hobbies and everything about us as individuals being socially capable and functional.
I have always thought that our nature gives us our potential and our nurture provides our limitations – which we can then either fall within or strive to exceed – again depending on personality, experiences through life and social opportunities.
The black box in the drawing is a reminder that there are in a normal population where gender selection abortion or female infanticide does not occur, that there are 104 male infants born for every 100 female infants – and that in a normal population in a secular democratic nation with modern medicine access, 6 male infants will not reach their first birthday – this is naturally and not including infant deaths owing to neglect, abuse or intentional abandonment following birth. In a normal population, females comprise 51% of the population. Which means that women are the majority….
so then extrapolating that to population demographics and likely to rare outcomes:
I find it curious that American creationists set themselves against biologists instead of anthropologists. For anthropology demonstrates better than any other area of science that religion and the gods of said religion, are cultural products to create a group identity, enforce social norms and be a means of controlling your population.
That every civilization that has risen and fallen in human history, has had their own gods/goddesses – and creation myths – that they worshiped demonstrates that humans create the gods and religion is the cultural mechanism to incorporate the gods into the society.
Religionists often forget that there are thousands of religions practiced around the world and they ignore these other religions to battle against atheists, who do not believe in any of them.
But only difference between an atheist and a believer in any religion, is that one religion – most people are 99.9% atheist – if you are a Christian, you are an atheist to all the other religions that are currently practiced or have been practiced or will be practiced.
Atheism isn’t a belief, it’s a rejection of the claims for deities and their dependent religion – so atheism has nothing to prove – this means that believers and non-believers are not in the same boat needing proof-paddles. only believers require proof – which they set the bar very low on for themselves, being wishful thinking and subjective feelings/experiences – but they only really need to provide evidence if they want to convince a non-believer – and so far, the only method that’s demonstrated a conversion rate is using a sword.
And really, given the embarrassing number of religions that have been practiced through history and into the modern era – including and maybe especially religions that came to be in the modern era in addition to the various sects and splinter groups of the existing ones – religion shouldn’t pit itself against science – biology or anthropology – because the more that science explains and the deeper our understanding of ourselves, the fewer aspects of our lives – intellectual or emotional – religions belongs in or satisfies.
After all, every religion started with one person having an idea and marketing it to followers, so what need does anyone have to go farther afield than themself to determine and define their religion?
Well, unless you want to make some money and wield power and influence with the least amount of work and effort – then you need to attract and maintain followers. But, as the great philosopher PT Barnum noted, there’s one born every minute.