It doesn't make me wrong, but you can replace intended with normal if you like, and then view normal as intended. You should research breastfeeding a bit more I think and read up on the importance for a child to bond with its mother and vice versa during breastfeeding. Heck this bond starts already during pregnancy. Not the breastfeeding part of course. There's enough circumstantial evidence to support it. It's not conclusive yet. But enough of it to say women should breast feed their children, there's also a link between breastfeeding and mental health among children. In any case, it is always wise to adopt the approach of "do no harm".
We see the negative effects throughout our society and culture today. You build from the ground up, just like a house need to have a stable foundation so does society, the nuclear family structure provides the foundation upon which society and culture is built, it's the cornerstone of civilization. Now you can attack it and undermine the foundation and even try to build another house next to the one you're burning down, but the house ain't gonna last very long because it isn't stable and it lacks a solid foundation. If we hadn't had the brains to build our society and cultures around this mutual dance (in which men and women complement each-other) we would never have been able to create what we have built in the west in the first place, and yes, when a man and a woman comes together to dance the man will lead and the woman will follow, not because she's forced to but because she wants to. If you scale this you end up with what you could call the patriarchy. This leadership if you will, should not be equated to male abuse or oppression of women, or the misguided idea of white male privilege (as based on race) which often times surfaces during these discussions. Added.(on culture) Culture is also synonymous with evolution, because culture, on its behavior level, is primarily biological.
It doesn't make you right, either. In nature you can only talk about "prevalent" and "functional". So the prevalent state is that the body develops sexually according to the instructions by the sex hormones, with resulting hormones produced sexually developing the brain, both in terms of identity and orientation. The usual result is that body and brain are sexually aligned with the sex hormones, but not always. This makes sexuality a complicated issue of genetics, biology, physiology, identity and sexual orientation. Repeating your assertion does not mean that you are not still conflating a whole bunch of processes. Science does not work on 'circumstantial evidence'. It is so, so much more complicated than that. For instance is it the breast milk? Is it the act of breast feeding? Is it the environmental circumstances associated with whether or not a mother breast feeds (and how she does it)? Is it something different altogether that has nothing to do with breast feeding but happens to have a correlation with breast feeding history? I can raise you scientific arguments for all of those. You are still conflating.
It's a nice (if simplistic) analogy, but "nuclear family" is a Western invention, and --research suggests-- not necessarily a very good one. A robust family is a tribe. And I still don't see how letting children work out their own sex would be a threat to the family structure. I call it self-serving attribution ******** without any scientific basis in fact or history. (And given that culture is subject to evolutionary forces --and you don't need to postulate a link with biology to know that-- doesn't that mean that culture is not absolute but constantly changing?)
We're part of nature so that's fine and you can frame it the way I did works just fine. Prevalent = normal. It's not so much me making assertions as it is all those processes being linked together and part of a holistic system. Meaning: You mess with one part of that system and it will affect all other parts. Hence the approach of “do no harm”. Point is that the family structure of dad + mom + offspring has been a rather successful one, it has served us well, even though the research you reference may suggest otherwise. You can call it what ever you like Nexxo, and clearly you don't dance.
Once you start making statements in support of "other people's opinion", as you have done throughout this thread, you're speaking on your behalf and expressing your opinions. There's a far cry between simply repeating statements and asking what others think about them, and what you have been doing in this thread.
There are no norms (as in: standards) in nature. But if you're referring to statistical norms, that's fine. You're still asserting without evidence or analysis. Research and history show that there are alternative family structures that work just as well. Which means that what works about a family structure may not be what you think it is. I do; I'm just not a strictly ballroom kind of guy.
Sure, that's why you've been getting so animated about the whole thing. You're not the only one who saw Trump and Brexit coming. The "wake up, steeple!" is getting a bit stale now.
If you're just trolling then please leave it out. If you're actually in this thread to have a meaninful discussion then please try to start having one. Thanks George
No one's been talking about standards or referred to statistics, I think it's time to leave it here. What ever historical track record you refer to it doesn't deal with the west we've had our society and culture firmly built around the nuclear family for centuries, it kind of naturally falls into place when a man and a women come together to start a family anyway. As for what alternative families would have to do with the nuclear family being the cornerstone of western civilization etc I don't know. I myself am more interested in the the research that suggest that they haven't been very successful. So you do dance after all, that's good to hear. Always lead.
No we haven't. Nuclear families are something that really became a thing in the 18th Century. Before that many families were extended or cooperative households. And yeah, apparently I'm a regular dance puppet.
You're trying to “rob” me but I did say centuries so ****. You should tell him you resent the accusation and that you dance after your own tune
So just a thought. Wouldn't you typically refer to a transgender person by either their name or the word you.
