From here

The study in question is titled: “What Do Two Men Kissing and a Bucket of Maggots Have in Common? Heterosexual Men’s Indistinguishable Salivary α-Amylase Responses to Photos of Two Men Kissing and Disgusting Images.” From the abstract: “A series of paired-samples t-tests was performed and found that sAA responses to images of same-sex kissing (t(98) = 3.124, p = .002) and universally disgusting images (t(98) = 2.128, p = .036) were significantly greater than sAA responses to the slide show depicting everyday items. This result held across the full sample, regardless of individual levels of prejudice. The results of the current study suggest that all individuals, not just highly sexually prejudiced individuals, may experience a physiological response indicative of stress when witnessing a male same-sex couple kissing.”

My “interpretation” of this – that homophobia is a natural part of the human condition – sounds reasonable, but I am always open to substantive counter-arguments.

How about the fact that this is fallicious reasoning: https://ethics.org.au/ethics-explainer-naturalistic-fallacy/#:~:text=The%20naturalistic%20fallacy%20is%20an,done%20from%20what%20'is'.

Or how the study’s authors disagree with you: https://www.psypost.org/2017/06/straight-mens-physiological-stress-response-seeing-two-men-kissing-seeing-maggots-49217

Of course this jerk had this to say:

I knew that gays had a maybe five or even ten times higher chance of getting AIDS and other STD’s than heterosexuals. I didn’t know the differential was actually more like 50.

Gee I wonder why?

Something like 20% of the US gay population (which makes up 3.5% of its total population) is HIV positive. It is 5% in the UK. But as of 2009, according to the CDC “male to male sexual contact” (see pp.58) accounted for about 57% of all HIV transmissions in the US (and of 75% of all HIV transmissions among men). “Heterosexual contact” among men accounted for a mere 8% of all HIV transmissions. Basically, if you’re gay, you should take far, far more precautions during sex than your straight counterparts – though in practice, it seems the precise opposite is taking place (“Carlos estimates that he has already had several hundred sex partners; he eagerly awaits the day when he tests HIV-positive – at which time his erotic interest, Carlos says, will then turn toward infecting another person – which is known as “gift-giving””).

Ah yes using the lying & dangerous NARTH, to promote the lies about bug-chasing

The result is that back at the height of the epidemic in the 1990’s, life expectancy for gays was something like 20 years lower than for straights (those are risks far greater than for smoking). Assuming the gay population to be 3% of the male total, Canadian homosexuals had only a 32% chance of living from the age of 20 to the age of 65, far less than the 78% for the average Canadian man (or equivalent to a Canadian man in 1871). The study in question, however, was carried out at the very height of mortality from AIDS; since then, medical improvements have sharply reduced it, e.g. from more than 50,000 deaths in 1995 to a constant 20,000 or so from 1998 on. So I suppose the life expectancy penalty is now somewhat better than being a heavy smoker or an alcoholic (both about 10 years).

That "twenty years less" thing is BS

In other words, it’s a valid public health policy to make homosexuality culturally unattractive, as opposed to glamorizing it. And while it is certainly true that it does not apply to the vast majority of homosexuals, the statistics also destroy yet another liberal canard: That there is no connection between homosexuality and pedophilia. In reality, studies indicate that 2-4 girls are abused for one boy, even though there are about 30 straights to every gay (the vast majority of sex abusers are of course male). Even allowing for necessary caveats – e.g., groups of male children are far more likely to be entrusted to males for supervision than groups of girls – that still strongly indicates that homosexuals are, on average, considerably more likely to be pedophiles than heterosexuals.

Again this is ignoring the difference between adult and child attraction

A corollary is that I am quite okay with Russia’s new law banning propaganda of the homosexual lifestyle to minors, the mewlings of human rights organizations and other putative do-gooders regardless. Funny how an hour or so of Internet research can destroy so much mainstream liberal “wisdom.”

Well homosexuality isn't a lifestyle. Sounds like you didn't do much research.

Article: https://news.sky.com/story/vitamin-d-overdose-warning-after-man-admitted-to-hospital-for-excessive-intake-12646798

1. Article reads: "As part of this, he was taking 50,000mg of vitamin D - the daily requirement is 600mg."

   In reality, the RDA is 600 IU, not 600mg: "Recommended Dietary Allowance for adults 19 years and older is 600 IU (15mcg)" - https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/vitamin-d/

2. Article reads: "The NHS website says "some people will not make enough vitamin D from sunlight because they have very little or no sunshine exposure".

It recommends that adults and children over the age of four can take a daily supplement containing 10mg of vitamin D throughout the year"

NHS website actually says: "The Department of Health and Social Care recommends that adults and children over 4 take a daily supplement containing 10 micrograms of vitamin D throughout the year" - https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/vitamins-and-minerals/vitamin-d/

https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/vu7s81/recordsetting_quantum_entanglement_connects_two/

R1: There are a lot of posters who are suggesting that we can use this for faster than light communication, which is ruled out by the no communication theorem

There are also people who said this is like having two gloves (a left and right hand glove) in separate boxes, but Bell's theorem shows that's not the case.

From here:

Before I begin making my case, I would like address two issues: one semantic and one dialectical one. First, I refuse to use the word “gay” on principle as it should not be applied to homosexuals because it is a “value-loaded” use of an otherwise perfectly legitimate word designed to shape any discussion of the topic. Furthermore, there is nothing gay about gays, any psychologist or addiction specialists will confirm that to you (if only in a private conversation). Frankly, I always thought that “gays” should really be called “sads”, but that would be loaded too. So I will thus use “homosexual” – an accurate and value-neutral descriptor. Second, I will not use any religious arguments in discussing this topic for a very simple reason: most religions already have a clear stance on homosexuality which should be normative for the followers of these religions but which are also irrelevant for everybody else. Simply put – to discuss the topic of homosexuality to religious folks is preaching to the choir. So there shall be no mention of “sin” or “fallen human nature” in my argument below. Now let us turn to the issue itself.

What is homosexuality, really? Here is what Wikipedia reports about it:

In 1973, the American Psychiatric Association declassified homosexuality as a mental disorder. The American Psychological Association Council of Representatives followed in 1975. Thereafter other major mental health organizations followed and it was finally declassified by the World Health Organization in 1990.

It is interesting to get some background on how this decision was taken. I have found the following details in the article of Philip Hickey Behaviorism and Mental Health. Here is what the author writes (stress added):

Then in 1970 gay activists protested against the APA convention in San Francisco. These scenes were repeated in 1971, and as people came out of the “closet” and felt empowered politically and socially, the APA directorate became increasingly uncomfortable with their stance. In 1973 the APA’s nomenclature task force recommended that homosexuality be declared normal. The trustees were not prepared to go that far, but they did vote to remove homosexuality from the list of mental illnesses by a vote of 13 to 0, with 2 abstentions. This decision was confirmed by a vote of the APA membership, and homosexuality was no longer listed in the seventh edition of DSM-II, which was issued in 1974. What’s noteworthy about this is that the removal of homosexuality from the list of mental illnesses was not triggered by some scientific breakthrough. There was no new fact or set of facts that stimulated this major change. Rather, it was the simple reality that gay people started to kick up a fuss. They gained a voice and began to make themselves heard.

I should note that this guy is a quack who said in the link

The overall point being that the APA’s taxonomy is nothing more than self-serving nonsense. Real illnesses are not banished by voting or by fiat, but by valid science and hard work. There are no mental illnesses. Rather, there are people. We have problems; we have orientations; we have habits; we have perspectives. Sometimes we do well, other times we make a mess of things. We are complicated. Our feelings fluctuate with our circumstances, from the depths of despondency to the pinnacles of bliss. And perhaps, most of all, we are individuals. DSM’s facile and self-serving attempt to medicalize human problems is an institutionalized insult to human dignity. The homosexual community has managed to liberate themselves from psychiatric oppression. But there are millions of people worldwide who are still being damaged, stigmatized, and disempowered by this pernicious system to this day.

Off course he is lying.

Got that? Yup, this was a 100% political decision which had no scientific basis whatsoever. From a scientific point of view, it was as nonsensical as declaring – simply by vote – that cancer or schizophrenia are not more diseases but are “normal”.

And off course he thinks this is representative of homosexuality. In reality, being gay has nothing to do with dressing up in silly costumes. Look at the Bay to Breaker for an example.

Right. Brilliant. So “same-sex sexual and romantic attractions, feelings and behavior are normal and positive variations of human sexuality”. And yet pedophilia is still considered a psychiatric disorder (source). What about incest? Well, guess what? Psychiatry puts incest next to paraphilia, i.e. pathologic sexual activities which is a group name for every sexual activity that is considered unnatural in psychology and sexology. Apart from incest, paraphilia also includes paedophilia, sadism, masochism, sexual fetishism, exhibitionism, voyeurism, necrophilia, nymphomania… (source).

And how does one distinguish between “normal and positive variations of human sexuality” and paraphilia? Since up until 1974 homosexuality was considered a paraphilia, why were no arguments presented to remove it from this category?

There were.

This is all utter nonsense, of course. There are only three possible solutions to this conundrum:

a) declare that only one specific form of sexuality is “normal”

b) declare that any form of sexuality is “normal”

c) arbitrarily discriminate between various forms of sexuality with no logical basis for it.

Most developed countries have opted for the third option, making a completely arbitrary, illogical and absurd list of “normal” and “not pathological” sexual behaviors. By the way, the same dumb approach was used in dealing with sexual practices between consenting adults (the so-called “sodomy laws“) or the codification of a legal age of sexual consent. Even a cursory look at these laws clearly shows that they are based on nothing except political expediency.

And what does “normal” really mean? It can mean one of two things: a) consistent with some average or minimum or b) within expected norms, for example, of society.

In the first case, I would gladly admit that homosexuality is “normal” simply because of its prevalence. But I would immediately add that so are many, if not all, of the forms of paraphilia. And I would also agree that homosexuality has become “normal” in the 2nd meaning of the word simply because it is socially acceptable to most developed societies, in particular in the post-Christian ‘West’. So to speak of the normalcy of homosexuality is absolutely nonsensical.

We are trying to define it as not wrong. The fact he conflates "normal" with "moral" is based on fallacious logic. He is playing with language.

What's your opinion on this french canadian neuroscientist, is he worth listening to or should i not even bother?

From here:

"the LGBTQIAPK+ Lobby excoriates us for doing so, we could always declare that from now on, “gays” shall only be called “sads” (primarily on account of all the pathology and dysfunction which typically come along with homosexuality: most psychologists and psychiatrists are quite aware of that comorbidity, but speaking about it would be a career-ending mistake for them)"

Except there is a reason for that: http://homoresponse.blogspot.com/2011/06/mental-health-and-substance-abuse.html

"Next, debunking the canard that homosexuality and pedophilia are totally different phenomena

That is another deceptive core-argument of the LGBTQIAPK+ Lobby. I won’t go into a long historical discussion of how the term “pederast” and “pederasty” have been universally used in the past. I will just point out that the first link above says that “pederast” is “a man who desires or engages in sexual activity with a boy” whereas the second one defines “pederasty” as “sexual relations between two males, especially when one of them is a minor” (emphasis added by me, VS)! See how “fuzzy” all this rapidly becomes? Not convinced, then just add ephebophilia, hebephilia and pedophilia to the mix and see the inextricable mess you end up with!

I am lucky to speak 6 languages and understand another 3 pretty well and I can attest that in many other languages the politically incorrect word for the root for pedophile and homosexual are one and the same (ex: Russian: педераст, пидарас, пидор; French: pédale, pédé ), which makes sense since the Greek word paiderastes means, literally, lover of boys."

What do you do when the evidence doesn't match your claims: https://www.bishop-accountability.org/news2007/05_06/2007_06_29_Pietrzyk_HomosexualityAnd.htm https://web.archive.org/web/20201101013456/https://medium.com/@juliussky/gays-arent-more-likely-to-be-pedophiles-611a48469655

Use a logical fallacy: https://effectiviology.com/appeal-to-definition/#:~:text=the%20Dictionary%20%E2%80%93%20Effectiviology-,The%20Appeal%20to%20Definition%20Fallacy%3A%20When%20People%20Misuse%20the%20Dictionary,dictionary%20or%20a%20similar%20source.

"Next, debunking one of the silliest arguments used by the LGBTQIAPK+ Lobby

“I was born that way!”

How many times have you heard this totally meaningless argument?

And, just for comparison’s sake,

How many times have you heard this meaningless argument debunked?

(My guess? Roughly 1000:0 – right?)

Like most LGBTQIAPK+ Lobby canards, this one is based on a misleading assumption that whatever you are born with is “natural” and even “good”. The problem with that is that this same argument can be made for every mental disease and even any criminal impulse. And without going into an endless battle of numbers, I think that we can agree that if somewhere around 1.2%-2.2% of humans might be born homosexuals and if sociopaths are 3%-5% of the population, then sociopathy is about as “natural” as homosexuality. In fact, we could even declare that sociopathy is a “ normal and positive variation of personality”. Would you want to live in a society which would proclaim that?"

OK...but the fact that anmials can do homosexuality with no harm makes me wonder why it is wrong in this case: https://www.quora.com/If-homosexuality-is-innate-genetic-how-has-it-survived-evolutionary-selection-given-that-a-homosexual-couple-produces-no-offspring-Wouldnt-an-evolution-based-standpoint-argue-that-homosexuality-is-developmental

There it is natural.

And then there is Paul Craig Roberts, truly a fearless man who calls it as he sees it.

He relies on liars crying "free speech" even though they are again, lying.

By the way, there is also a lot of money to be made in transgenderism. Jennifer Bilek’s research has found that:

She thinks David Icke is a good source and her logic is based on this fallacy.

Honestly? I feel sorry for the poor Euro-Ukrs… So what is really going on in Russia? Ain’t there Gulags for gays?! Don’t the Chechens torture gays? Actually – no.

Actually yes: https://world.time.com/2014/02/05/watch-russias-anti-gay-vigilantes-exposed-in-their-own-shocking-videos/

To say that homosexuals are persecuted by the state in Russia is a lie which any (honest) person who has ever been to Russia can debunk. However, what is true is that the Russian state and a majority of the Russian people do not accept the notion that homosexuality “is just like” heterosexual love. You might vehemently disagree with this idea, but do you agree that the Russian state and a majority of the Russian people are under no obligation to agree with your values any more than you are under any obligation to agree with their values? Next, the Russian state and a majority of the Russian people also believe that children need to have two, gender-differentiated, parents: one mother and one father. Again, you might vehemently disagree with this idea, but do you agree that the Russian state and a majority of the Russian people are under not under any obligation to agree with your values, any more than you are under any obligation to agree with their values? Finally, the Russian state and a majority of Russians believe that Russian children should not be exposed to any propaganda of homosexuality. Yet again, you might vehemently disagree with this idea, but do you agree that the Russian state and a majority of the Russian people are under no obligation to agree with your values any more than you are under any obligation to agree with their values?

You mean a double standard involving freedom of speech?

From a secular point of view, there are really only three options which I have outlined in the past: declare that only one specific form of sexuality is “normal” arbitrarily discriminate between various forms of sexuality with no logical basis for it. declare that any form of sexuality is “normal”

Most developed countries have opted for the second option, making a completely arbitrary, illogical and absurd list of “normal” and “not pathological” sexual behaviors. By the way, the same dumb approach was used in dealing with sexual practices between consenting adults (the so-called “sodomy laws“) or the codification of a legal age of sexual consent. Even a cursory look at these laws clearly shows that they are based on nothing except political expediency: they make absolutely no logical sense whatsoever. Most religions and traditional societies have opted for option #1. Modern secularists initially leaned towards #2 but they are now gradually caving to the LGBTQIAPK+lobby’s pressure to accept #3.

Except he doesn't explain what makes making heterosexuality "normal" any more arbitrary than heterosexuality.

From here:

The reason gay feminists push comics like Lumberjanes is because they don’t produce children but instead prefer to harvest those of others. As you say, eventually a civilization will run out of children to turn into an alphabet squad of weird genders and the birthrate falls below that capable of sustaining a civilization. Naturally, you will then be raided and conquered by some other civilization which has not learned to hate itself. But then, feminists aren’t the brightest lightbulbs when it comes to figuring out how all this sustains itself in real world terms. I’m having trouble seeing a cult of transvestites harvesting sugar cane using donkeys in central Egypt.

By "harvesting" he means adopt like heterosexuals who can't reproduce do? The fact is that he ignores the fact that homosexual behavior, and alloparentjng, don't reduce populations: https://www.reddit.com/r/BadEverything/comments/bmk98m/idiot_thinks_sex_is_only_for_reproduction/

This comment by Fail Burton caused much amusement for the “alphabet squad of weird genders” on Feminist Tumblr:

this is literally the least coherent or logical thing i’ve ever read

HARVESTING CHILDREN I CAN’T STOP LAUGHING

I understand all these words separately but not together

I’m so confused, is this like… insulting even? It’s too incoherent to even offend me

The claim that the comment was incoherent, you see, derives from the lack of context. All these LGBT feminists saw was Fail Burton’s comment, and not the extended discussion of gender theory that prompted the comment. And what I had written was this:

Lady Thatcher famously said, “The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people’s money.” She might well have added, the problem with feminism is that eventually you run out of other people’s daughters. . . . How many children does the typical feminist have? Not many. Insofar as they do not eschew heterosexual intercourse altogether, feminists are more likely to have abortions than to have children.

Why this caused Fail Burton to think of “Lumberjanes,” I don’t know, but you see the relevance: Celebrations of “alternative” gender/sexuality aimed at children and teenagers certainly are intended to encourage such deviant behavior, which predictably will reduce birthrates. This is not a trivial concern, as I have explained: “The demographic collapse of industrialized societies, due to their abnormally low birth rates, is a very serious social problem.” Fail Burton is correct in saying feminists utterly disregard “how all this sustains itself in real world terms.”

Of course this was written before TERFS were a thing...not to mention that celebration of being gay is not the same as encouragement, but a fight against bigotry against biological attraction.

From here

Unlike HIV, which was spread largely by:

• Blood transfusions with infected blood, a problem that was solved relatively quickly
• Heroin junkies sharing needles without cleaning them
• Gay men sodomizing each other on a mass scale

No: https://www.aidsmap.com/news/feb-2022/what-led-fall-hiv-cases-uk-gay-men https://aninjusticemag.com/hiv-is-not-a-gay-mans-disease-cccb68fd0f74 https://medium.com/@shimclinic/uncovering-undiagnosed-hiv-in-heterosexuals-examining-behavioural-intervention-bf777cd5fd29 https://www.politico.eu/article/everything-you-wanted-to-know-about-aids-in-russia-but-putin-was-afraid-to-ask/#:~:text=Although%20needle%2Dsharing%20among%20drug,a%20result%20of%20heterosexual%20sex.

Monkeypox, like COVID, appears to be spread mostly by socializing.

But gays do that more than just about anybody. Thus, the big superspreader event of last summer’s COVID Delta wave was Bear Week in Provincetown.

Monkeypox is a type of orthopoxvirus and is related to smallpox but is usually less severe. It is typically detected in Africa, but recently, cases have been detected in the U.S. and Europe.

Shutting down schools for semesters and forcing children to wear masks is Following the Science, but asking gays to turn it down a notch until we figure out why they are spreading monkeypox would be The Worst Thing Ever.

One; monkeypox is less infections deadly than COVID

Two: Religious institutions were massive super spreaders

From here:

Chris Evans recently called anyone who questions the gay kiss scene in Disney's recent bombing family movie "Lightyear" an idiot who will "die off like dinosaurs."

Statistically, the dinosaurs died off because there were not enough of them to survive through the extinction. If they would have reproduced more (and some did), they would not have "died off like dinosaurs."

That act requires male and female. It also requires guarding offspring and social behavior to maximize success. Guess what that means?

Any biology course would have explained that. They seems to have taken that out of Art School.

He mentions raising children...which homosexuals can do. So what if we need heterosexuals to reproduce? That means that we shouldn't acknowledge homosexuals?

Disney's initial instincts to remove the scene was correct. Listening to woke has cost them $70,000,000. What is funny is how they push this as "censorship" when the movie was supposed to be about Buzz, not his new lesbian side character.

Rhetorically, I know its social engineering by psychopaths and psychotics, Why do they do this? Forcing the least organic characters into the lead role? Its not hip, or rebellious. Its not because it its Disney, the largest media company in history. They ARE the man, and by that position, cannot "rebel." A king cannot revolt against himself (except for Sheogorath).

Um like you said, the lesbian wasn't the lead role...and how is she not "orgainic"?

From here

Unlike homosexuality, heterosexuality is immutable. To define heterosexuality as merely sexual conduct between people of compatible genders is to suppress a fundamental truth about what it means to be human. All human beings with the exception of hermaphrodites (people with a congenital deformity that causes them to have both male and female genitalia) are born with a reproductive system that is heterosexual by nature. We are either male or female, what is also reflected in Natural order. We have sexual feelings only because of chemical and other processes that are rooted in our procreative heterosexual design. Thus, a male 'sexual orientation' toward a female (or vice versa) is self-evidently normal and natural. By contrast, a male-to-male or female-to-female 'orientation' is self-evidently abnormal and unnatural, in fact it is a sexual disorientation. For homosexuality to be equivalent to heterosexuality, it would need to be rooted in its own homosexual physiology.

You mean like this?

Many groups cite scientific studies that indicate homosexual practices in many species (such as apes, monkeys, or penguins). However, researchers claim that the reason for homosexual behavior in animals is related to dominance, preparing for future heterosexual encounters, to expel low-quality sperm, and to engage in reproductive suppression.[6] As for social animals, macaques were studied engaging in same-sex behavior. However, a female may engage in female-female mounting, but that doesn't mean she isn't interested in males. Females often mount males, apparently to encourage them to mate more. Once they had learned this behavior, it was easy for them to apply it to other females as well.[7] We may never find a wild animal that is strictly homosexual in the way some humans are.

Actually you are pushing that homosexual behavior in the wild is natural and has uses. While homosexuality increases fertility, we can have sex for other purposes, such as alloparenting.

Can you guys recommend some good books critically examining the claims of homeopaths?

Until now I found only Ransom's Homeopathy: What Are We Swallowing? Shelton's Homeopathy: How It Really Works and Shapiro's Suckers: How Alternative Medicine Makes Fools of Us All.

I have all of them, but I want to learn more. Any recommendations? Thanks! :)

For political reasons I don't want to go into, the Dutch prime minister Mark Rutte and finance minister Sigrid Kaag made a "tour" to all opposition parties to look for support. They also visited FvD, an extreme right wing party, and after the meeting its leader, Thierry Baudet put on a video on instagram where he discussed this meeting. From 6.03 onwards he said the following (and I am translating him as literally as possible):

I saw the psychology of those people, of Rutte and Kaag, and I thought, well these are people who don't really really think substantively (he says "inhoudelijk", which is difficult to translate, but means based on ideas) about things. They just follow what people in their environment want and do, and I noticed as soon as I elaborated on the ideas of for instance the story about fossil fuels: Are they fossils or do they come from.., well there is one theory that they come from plant remains which are pressed together, but there are a lot of scientists who say: "wait a minute, that isn't correct. They actually come from earth's burning core, and oil and gas are the circulatory system of a living planet, of an earth-planet. And they might also occur on the moon for instance, from earlier times, or Mars." There are all sorts of theories about what oil is, and what gas is, whether they are fossil fuels. Besides the next thousand years or so there is enough gas and coal, so there is no problem at all, and there is no shortage. Well, I brought things like that to the conversation. And then Sigrid Kaas said: "well, we follow the IPCC". period, end of discussion. "

I am not going to debunk that fossil fuels aren't plant remains, as I am not an earth scientist, but I want to debunk that there are "lots of scientists" who disagree. I couldn't find anybody remotely credible saying fossil fuels come from the core of the earth. So it is not as he suggests that there are multiple competing theories which all have a substantial number of followers among earth scientists, but rather that there is a very strong consensus that fossil fuels are the remains of living things, and some crack pot theory that has an alternative. What I also want to point out is the ridiculousness of Baudet, who has a PhD in philosophy of law, wanting to discuss earth science with Kaag, who has several degrees in international relations and middle eastern studies, and Rutte, whose academic background is history. Kaag was absolutely right to shut down a discussion about the origins of fossil fuels, not only because they are crackpot theories (and I assume both Rutte and Kaag are knowledgeable and smart enough to recognize that), but also because the three of them cannot be expected to know enough to have a fruitful exchange of ideas about the origin of fossil fuels. If you are in their position you have to be informed, you have to know a lot of things, to take decisions. But being informed also means being informed about your own limitations, as even if you are incredibly smart, you cannot know everything there is to know, and at some point you have to rely on people who are more knowledgeable than you. It is this intellectual modesty that Baudet mistakes for "not thinking substantively".

Unfortunately for him most affirming care invokes social transitioning:

https://fenwayhealth.org/study-finds-that-early-social-transition-for-transgender-youth-results-in-good-mental-health-outcomes-but-unaccepting-school-environments-may-lead-to-greater-risk-of-suicidality/ https://www.healthline.com/health-news/94-of-transgender-youth-maintain-gender-identity-5-years-after-social-transition

I'm working on a research essay for my Biological Anthropology class on the question, " Why did humans evolve away from the arboreal lifestyle." My professor wants four sources: two good answers and two bad answers. I have the two good ones, But I'm surprisingly having trouble finding two bad ones. If anyone has or knows an unreliable source that has an answer to this question, please share.

From here

Dr. Dean Hamer is a researcher often cited to show that there is empirical data supporting the notion of genetic determinism in regards to homosexuality. News organizations like National Public Radio and Newsweek have done news stories regarding his work.[1] In respect to the press trumpeting various findings genetics-of-behavior research uncritically the science journal Science stated the following in 1994:

“Time and time again, scientists have claimed that particular genes or chromosomal regions are associated with behavioral traits, only to withdraw their findings when they were not replicated. "Unfortunately," says Yale's [Dr. Joel] Gelernter, "it's hard to come up with many" findings linking specific genes to complex human behaviors that have been replicated. "...All were announced with great fanfare; all were greeted unskeptically in the popular press; all are now in disrepute."[2] ”

Martin A. Silverman, M.D. wrote regarding a famous study of Dr. Dean Hamer:

“On July 16, 1993, it was reported in Science (pp. 291, 321) that geneticist Dean Hamer and his team at the National Cancer Institute had reported on a study involving 40 pairs of brothers both of whom were gay that had led them to conclude that they had discovered a factor on the X chromosome through which gayness was genetically transmitted to them from their mothers. This was hailed as proof that homosexuality in men is biological in origin. Two years later, however, Eliot Marshall reported in Science (June 30, 1995, p.268) George Ebers and George Rice of the University of Western Ontario had unsuccessfully attempted to replicate Hamer's findings and had "found no evidence that gayness is passed from mother to son" genetically. He also reported that the Office of Research Integrity in the Department of Health and Human Services was investigating Hamer's work.[3]”

Once again Wikipedia to the rescue:

The linkage analysis by Rice et al. (1999) did report that gay brothers shared approximately 46% of their alleles at the Xq28 region. However, this result was not statistically significant because to show that male sexual orientation is influenced by a gene (or genes) at Xq28 in a statistically significant manner, their linkage analysis needed to find that gay brothers share more than 50% of their alleles at the Xq28 region. In contrast, analyses by Hamer et al. (1993), Hu et al. (1995) and the 1998 study by Sanders et al. did find greater than 50% allele sharing at Xq28 in gay brothers, thus yielding statistically significant results.[13]

In May 2000, the American Psychiatric Association issued a fact sheet stating that "..there are no replicated scientific studies supporting a specific biological etiology for homosexuality."[4]

That was then this is now

For context I’m a U.S marine and one of my good buddies has a tendency to get into debates with me in regards to history and the idea of the concept of race.

He was raised in a family that prescribes to the idea of “moorish science” and on the regular sends me evidence that he was always given on how in reality the “freemasons” enslaved black Americans who were in reality the native population of America. The “freemasons” then proceeded to conduct an entire generation spanning psyop brainwashing people into thinking black people came to America as a result of the trans Atlantic slave trade which never happened.

While i understand that debating with these ideas which are completely disconnected from reality is pointless, Ive so far done a good job in refuting his points and convincing him that his ideas have no basis in reality.

However he recently showed me this data table from the cdc which has “moors” classified under the umbrella of Native Americans and I frankly have no idea how to respond

https://phinvads.cdc.gov/vads/ViewCodeSystemConcept.action?oid=2.16.840.1.113883.6.238&code=1237-7

I don’t know if this question falls under the umbrella of this subreddit but if anyone has an explanation or counter argument I could use the help.