Nina’s Hypothesis of Human Sexuality part 1 Birth to Population Demographics

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….

Pop Psychology – women are cats and men are dogs
the top row is women – het, queer and male identified
the bottom row is men – female identified, queer and het

so then extrapolating that to population demographics and likely to rare outcomes:

where do morals come from?

When debating with believers, the conversation inevitably comes around to morals. What’s moral? What authority do morals stem from?

That believers assign the authority to an external source, to me says that they do not know moral all on their own. They wouldn’t recognize a moral act from an  immoral one without their dandy list of rules – rules which largely do not deal with morals, but with worship and punishment of people who don’t follow those rules. And this punishment is pretty immoral.

So, where do morals come from?

They come from us, they evolved with us and as we embraced the morals, those were the people who thrived enough to breed. So, they were culturally taught and genetically reinforced.

The longer version:  humans are social animals and to live together, certain conventions of refraining from harming each other makes living in groups possible and refraining from incestuous behavior means the offspring are healthy.

We are happier belonging to groups and we increase survivability – it also allows us to specialize in labour and become more productive and allow for leisure time.

Harm covers a wide spectrum of behavior and decisions; in early days, being harmful meant you were expelled from the group and likely die without producing offspring.

The people who were willing to get along, lived to breed and passed this amiability down through the generations and these socially reinforced behaviours form the basis of our moral code.

Which is also why people from different cultures thought out history and today  have widely varying moral codes.

But convention isn’t a solo act – the disgust response plays a huge part in determining an individual’s morals – and this is also culturally – not exactly dependent, but culturally informed.

It’s repulsive to me to think of an 8 year old girl married to a 40+ year old man, but that’s a typical day in some countries. Theocratic countries……

We have an instinctive aversion to incest because that doesn’t produce healthy offspring – seeing couples of widely varying ages touches on this, but also, older people becoming parents – even with a young spouse – increases the chance of non-viable or non-healthy offspring.

Of course we’re not all instinct, because there’s a growing number of people who chose not to have children – that 6 billion plus people are enough in the world.

Other people think this is terrible and I suspect that much of that disgust is racist based.  Because the public and vocal proponent of not having children tend to be white couples and it’s religious white people who most object. So, I can only suspect that it’s concerns about white population numbers, not population numbers that’s behind this anxiety.

This is a stupid anxiety, since we are all humans, there are no subspecies. And, there’s less than 1% genetic difference between any two people randomly selected from any where on the globe. Yup, all the apparent physical difference really is cosmetic and skin deep.

People have other variations that allow them to have a diversity of moral views within the same culture as other people – and these are often religion influenced, as well as the tendency to be fundamentalist or moderate or open minded (which includes non-religious frameworks, like vegetarian, environmental, etc).

Problems and conflicts arise when one group thinks that their idea of morality is “normal” and should apply to everyone else.

These folks tend to want their morals to apply more to everyone else – sort of, do as I pray and not as I do.

There are no such thing as universal morals any more than there are universal rights. If there were, we wouldn’t be able to articulate them they’d be that ingrained and the same everywhere and throughout time.

And the idea of absolute morals, well, not all rules work with all situations.

Sometimes, you have to lie to spare someone’s feelings.

One thing that I noticed waaaaaaaaay back in college in the morals and ethics class that we looked at various schools of thought about morality, is that none of them, not one, factored in motivation.

They focused on outcome, impact on others, following a set of rules that didn’t allow for rule conflict.

What if stealing food saved a life? Still immoral?

If I saw a person drowning, and I jumped in to save them- moral thing, right? Probably. Especially if I didn’t know how to swim, I do, but that makes it kinda more heroic, eh?

What if that person celebrated surviving the event by harming or killing someone else? Even accidentally, say drunk driving home from a bar. Now, because I saved the first person, another person – or more  – died. Less moral now?

What I recognized the drowning person and knew they were rich? So I saved them to get a reward…. not as moral anymore…..

One action, many interpretations.

What if I let them drown because I was afraid or couldn’t swim? Immoral?

What if by letting them drown, all the future harm that they would have caused was prevented? not okay? what if they had a long violent criminal record that I had no way to know about?

Morals, make the best choice you can with the information you have available.

Think and Care.

Best foundation for any moral code.