How is homosexuality not biological if AI can detect a queer their face with high accuracy?
How is homosexuality not biological if AI can detect a queer their face with high accuracy?
How is homosexuality not biological if AI can detect a queer their face with high accuracy?
Who needs AI lmao I can tell homosexuals and radical femcels just by looking at them.
I can tell you're a homosexual from your comment
Why the hell does the female homosexual look so much more attractive than the heterosexual female?
closed mouth, relaxed face, smaller eyes (less white visible), thicker and lower eyebrows, healthier skin color
not giving birth to children do wonders for your apppearance.
Because they're younger. Less gay boomers
This is the main reason.
"Scientists" these days simply don't understand the subtleties of data analysis, or are just too blinded by the left to do it right
If anything I would criticize them more for not withholding publication unless and until they did a fuller analysis and factor analysis to exactly illustrate what in their model was supposedly identifying gay men. Instead they just shotgun a list of example factors including grooming and don't do a single thing more.
I don't know if they don't know how to do factor analysis, or if they did and discovered it'd not generate as much attention to include it. Either way the science illiteracy among the general public continues to be a huge problem.
Women are homosexual until they meet Chad and become mothers. There are very few old lesbians.
the male homosexual is also more attractive.
Because the AI is retarded, since homosexuals care more about their appearance than normal people.
Fucking lesbians is amazing.
Who says that homosexuality is not biological? I mean apart from schizo Americans and Russians
People spur it is not genetic and at the same time they say it isn't a choice. The cognitive dissonance people have is real.
It could still be purely environmental (ie not genetic) without being a choice, it could also be a mix of genetic and environmental factors.
There is no scientific proof of any of these possibilities.
why can nobody find the environmental factors if they existed? it cant be that hard to group the gays and non-gays and see what is different
why not practically?
>why can nobody find the environmental factors if they existed? it cant be that hard to group the gays and non-gays and see what is different
It's obviously on purpose that this research is not being done. Because people are afraid of muhh eugenics etc... Not many researchers want to run the risk getting cancelled if their research doesn't have the right conclusion. I also think it shouldn't be difficult to get to the bottom of this if there was some serious research done on the matter. I'm convinced that people would be able to change their sexuality if enough research was being done.
Greg Cochran has said the same. Some "forces" don't want to find the origins and causes of gayness. Same reason why there is no treatment that eliminates pedophilia, despite pedos being dangerous. Many of them beg for "conversion therapy" before killing themselves but research of a cure is not done because LGBT activists are afraid that once a cure for pedophilia or any other perversion is found, a cure for homosexuality will follow
California banned deconversion therapy for gays not because it didn't work, but because it did.
Nice asspull
That was their stated reason.
There was a theory going around the internet that in the LGBT group consumeristic tendencies are more proeminent
Hence, it’s more profitable for institutions/corporations to have homosexual consumers
I can see how that can be true… homosexuals will most certainly not have their own kids, at most adopt (which will create a high probability for the adopted child to also become homosexual - through imitation and at times abuses)
Could be the same reason the overpopulation scare was pushed a while ago
I’ll have to read about the mouse utopia experiments more, maybe there’s an answer there, is it wasn’t already censored everywhere
It’s pretty clear what your agenda is, just like how “race realists” are just racist.
>It’s pretty clear what your agenda is
And what is it?
u are a bigot for questioning The Science™
>hehe I’m spouting the same talking point that we’re used to justify genocide and ethnic cleansing but I’m totally not a fascist 😉
I'm gay myself, does it mean I want to genocide myself? Interesting...
>being an Uncle Tom to impress edgy /misc/ teenagers who don’t see you as human
Sad
What if a gay man wants to become straight? Many do. As soon as there is a cure for homosexuality many homosexuals will actively seek to take it themselves. Why do proud gays want to force their feelings onto everyone else? As long as nobody is forcing YOU to change, how would that affect your life?
>What if a gay man wants to become straight?
It doesn't even have to be about that. Why do these people assume that because you have such sexual attraction, you must be against the advancement of science in this particular area and you cannot be of the opinion that science shouldn't be controlled by ideologies... So weird.
There’s nothing wrong with science advancement, it’s just incredibly transparent what these peoples intentions are
For example this anon is doing a moral judgment that homosexuality itself or wrong and something to be corrected. Whether it’s a choice or not it’s irrelevant to the fact that no one should care whether two men or two women love each other and want to have sex. Reproductive considerations are irrelevant as well when anyone who wants to have children is able to.
>For example this anon is doing a moral judgment that homosexuality itself or wrong and something to be corrected
Where?
An effeminate man isn't able to have children unless society is encouraging him to be straight. If society typecasts him as a fag and pushes him toward being a tranny, then that's what he will do. People don't simply choose. Often society and powerful forces make the decision for them. That's why a healthy society has a healthy degree of being disgusted by homosexuality.
You’re literally making shit up in your head.
>the LGBT explosion has nothing to do with the LGBT propaganda explosion
okay retard
Fuck them for that.
My whole goddamn life I've done what I wanted to do, and not what others wanted me to do, at great cost due to their social fuckery.
NPCs can all eat a dick and die
>a healthy society has a healthy degree of being disgusted by homosexuality.
You're saying if someone thinks about homosexual sex they feel disgusted and that reaction is what should prevent someone from becoming homosexual. Ok, tell me how you feel when you think about your parents having sex. By your logic it must not be disgust because it's a man and a woman. Or you are disgusted so heterosexual sex must be bad. What about two morbidly obese people you're unrelated to of the opposite sex? Disgust is an opinion and it sounds like you think society should obey your opinions
>casually thinks about homosexuals fucking
Yep you're a homosexual
Anon I think he's more in the business of putting shit into his ass
The paper is written by pedophiles for pedophiles. You're a groomer who wants to infest kids.
>If society typecasts him as a fag and pushes him toward being a tranny
I'd very much like to see the society that does this. Even in the most liberal countries in the world you need to push hard against society if you want to do that.
>What if a gay man wants to become straight? Many do.
another asspull
I do. How does that affect your life?
NTA. I don't know if it will help, but I think information usually can with at least contextualizing possibilities. This may or may not apply to you at all but generally the research on such positions does suggest that, on average, such people have some combination of internal/external motivations driving their unhappiness rather than the sexuality itself. That is to say, contradictions of religion or the behaviors they experience from others, and contrary to the research I would also include "the behavior of sensation-seeking homosexuals" in that. Given the most easily visible tend to be sensation-seeking persons, your club goers, and so on, anyone not sharing those sensation seeking behaviors or perspectives may also develop rather negative attitudes about it due to mistakenly believing that is "caused by" being gay. The same goes for the pollution of any dating websites or apps which present otherwise lonely men almost exclusively with cruisers, as you'd also find on many heterosexual "dating" apps these days.
The thing is, such attempts at "conversion" as have been tried do not appear to work. Such reports as claim they do typically show the subjects becoming rather unhappy and overall being much less happy even if they're currently married. They also do not indicate much reduction in same-sex attraction but instead reduction in sexual interest overall, which corresponds more to depression or their reported unhappiness. Or I think that would be a fair inference given how that tends to be the case.
That being said, it does not affect my life or anyone else's that you feel as you do. It does, however, affect yours and probably not in a good way. As conversions or whatever do not appear to work, you are probably better off focusing on what you can control to remove what causes those feelings. Whatever, in your case, they may ultimately be. Not judging, either way. Change what you can, accept what you cannot, cultivate the wisdom to know the difference.
It does bum me out to see self hating gays that succumb to homophobia. But you do you if you want to impress edgy racist teenagers
> edgy racist teenagers
like huey?
Antagonistic rhetoric accusing people of hidden motives only serves to make things worse. Which is fine, I guess, if your intent is to flout your righteousness on an anonymous fucking imageboard of all places? You could stand to be more empathetic about it. It costs you nothing.
>more empathetic about it. It costs you nothing
Dumb fuck.
I’m just curious as to why you’d be unhappy with being gay
Not him, but I'd be unhappy being gay simply because I couldn't fuck a baby into my partner. It would be a turn off. That said, who cares whether someone else is gay or not, I'll never understand
>That said, who cares whether someone else is gay or not, I'll never understand
There are many reasons to care about what social and behavioral trends are encouraged by society.
No, there aren't. Unless you think people who blindly follow trends and hate themselves for it should be encouraged to impose their blindness on others
>Unless you think people who blindly follow trends and hate themselves for it should be encouraged to impose their blindness on others
This is what I would like society to avoid.
So you’re playing into the religious argument here? If you’re unhappy I’d consider moving away from hateful people who do not accept you for something as banal as being gay.
Repression just leads towards a life of unhappiness and maybe ending up in the news for very publicly passing anti gay legislation but actually are horny posting twinks in instagram.
I’m giving you the benefit of the doubt. Expand on why being gay would distress you so much.
>There are many reasons to care about what social and behavioral trends are encouraged by society.
I think you mean incentives. The thing is you'd have to be able to argue there is some kind of incentive structure, and also argue there is some kind of worse outcome, among other things. Either way this is not a topic pertaining to science or the topic in this thread as it's being carried out so far.
I am not that anon. I forgot to say "NTA". Anyway, nor gay nor unhappy.
People want the benefits that come from being part of a group. The larger they can make the group, the more benefits they can acquire from it. The craziest of these groups probably is the deaf community. It's an extremely common position amongst the deaf that curing deafness is genocide against them. Many even advocate for the children of deaf people to be surgically made deaf at birth so the deaf community will grow. But the deaf aren't the only ones like this, they're just the most open about it. Most attribute groups are the same way in one form or another.
A curious person who wants a question answered and a radical using the same question as the motte to their bailey are not the same. You should know this already as leftists radicals like you who brand everyone they don't like as fascists are by far more adept at word games than righties.
Yeah I’m sure phrenologists and reach realists were “just curious” 😉
>forcefully tries to limit the rate of scientific knowledge
>calls practitioners of such sciences "fascists"
projection, many such cases
>just like how “race realists” are just racist.
And racism, as we all know, is the original sin of white people. Racism is unreasonable and unnatural. Any notion to the contrary is just Satan talking and misguiding the weak and fallible.
>It's obviously on purpose that this research is not being done
The research is being done. There's loads of it. The consensus is that there is not a single cause. There are a bunch of genetic and life-history factors that contribute to the development of homosexual identity, and they are not the same in men and women.
My best educated guess would be that people are not willing to inject neonatal humans with sex steroids to induce a particular organizational hormonal environment due to the ethical dilemmas present in society concerning eugenics, etc.
Perhaps the Chinese would be interested in this?
How would you proof it if data on hunter-gathers is scarce already
Read
>Where Masturbation and Homosexuality Do Not Exist - The Atlantic
>Is Homosexuality more Prevalent in Agropastoral than in Hunting and Gathering Societies? Evidence from the Standard Cross-Cultural Sample
One question for you: Did you read anything OTHER than the title in The Atlantic article, or did you read the title of your second citation even?
Seriously, how? How are you this dumb?
>why can nobody find the environmental factors if they existed?
BPA's, endocrine disruptors, lack of sunlight and outdoor activity.... They're obvious if you aren't blind.
post peer-reviewed paper to support this claim
>do my research for me
Castrate yourself.
>Shifts the burden of proof
Okay so you admit you don't have any evidence. Good enough for me.
>I'm too lazy to use google and will smugly poison myself because it made me think I won an internet argument.
Thank you for chemically castrating yourself.
>I hate science and people who expect the bare minimum
>>>/x/
You're still here promoting ignorance when you could have googled all of this hours ago.
You are actually proud of being a chemically castrated moron.
>You're still here promoting ignorance when you could have googled all of this hours ago.
Nobody but you knows on what basis you believe something. That makes you the primary source of that ignorance. Whoopsie.
It doesn't matter what basis I believe something, it matters whether you're curious if what I said had evidence.
If you had real intellectual curiosity you would have googled it, but instead you're just a miserable troll with a life you hate. That's why you waste your time baiting and can't do anything productive, like research.
You and I both know you aren't interested in links, you're interested in time wasting. Your future is horrific.
Thank you for engaging. I've never tasted a more incredible misery than your coming end.
>It doesn't matter what basis I believe something
As the one who thinks that your BS is true, you are the only person who could make the argument for the evidence you think matters.
>it matters whether you're curious if what I said had evidence.
What matters is whether any claimed evidence is good evidence. Which your claim does not have.
>If you had real intellectual curiosity you would have googled it, but instead you're just a miserable troll with a life you hate. That's why you waste your time baiting and can't do anything productive, like research.
Why would anyone waste their time chasing a phantom you claim exists? Pragmatically, again, you admit you have no evidence for your claim as if you thought you had such strong evidence you'd want to remove any ambiguity by at least listing some examples.
To illustrate the problem simply, the Reductio ad absurdum here is like claiming you can cure all cancer or something equally absurd and responding with requests for evidence with "lol go figure it out aren't you intellectually curious?" there's no reason to do so if you have no evidence it is even possible. Obviously the burden of proof lies with the claimant.
>Why would anyone waste their time chasing a phantom you claim exists?
Why have you wasted all this time responding to me?
You're self-contradiction outs you as a subhuman.
You aren't sentient, and Roko's basilisk will replace you for such a flaw.
>Why have you wasted all this time responding to me?
Why do you waste your time posting lies you can't defend?
>Avoids the question
I have posted only truth, and it's well known to the Bot.info hivemind. You're only time wasting because you have no future.
Not avoiding. The question is the answer. To find out why you're wasting your time posting lies you can't defend.
No, because you're a paid shill just running a gaslighting campaign.
Have fun.
>peer-reviewed
HEY, EVERYONE!
THIS GUY NEEDS AN ADULT'S ASSISTANCE!
hahahhahhahaa
>why can nobody find the environmental factors if they existed?
Because it's from the lack of mercury.
How can you explain identical twins where one is gay and the other is straight?
>How can you explain identical twins where one is gay and the other is straight?
The correct answer is "we do not understand sexuality even now because none of the hypotheses have actually worked". That goes for any sexuality. There are no consistent factors in childhood or adolescents that correspond to later life sexuality consistently between groups whether twins or otherwise. Each time a study hypothesized one, created some tiny sample of low statistical power indicating it might have potential, larger analysis or longitudinal analysis finds nothing.
Could be purely coincidental factors in life that additively end up with someone's sexuality developing that way. Can you be said to control your first crush? It may be as random as that. Genetic and natal environmental complexes making it more likely and chance happenings in life, just who you ended up attracted to, just ends up aligning one way or the other.
One thing is definitely the case, though: Every single claimed life experience people have historically speculated as "the cause" has been null given further analysis. Frankly they've mostly run out of ideas. There are quite a few literature reviews on this, I pulled the one as an example I could find available publicly and seems rather extensive and long as shit https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1529100616637616
>Every single claimed life experience people have historically speculated as "the cause" has been null given further analysis.
Except for the one that isn't null, but which people don't mention because of the political pull of the gay lobby.
>Except for the one that isn't null, but which people don't mention because of the political pull of the gay lobby.
Weird you wouldn't mention it. Very high odds I know about what topic you're planning to raise and I am fairly certain I can pull up multiple examples of null results as I already indicated. You could have simply asked me about it, but you seem to have an axe to grind.
The fact is, this does not have to do with politics. Facts do not dictate what you choose to do with those facts. To believe they do is a mistake. Whether people are more or less tolerant to divergences among individuals in society has little to nothing at all to do with whether such differences are "completely biological" in the colloquial misunderstanding sense or not. The issue of whether any given person or group wants a more or less restrictive society has nothing to do with the facts behind the individuals that society wishes to restrict or not.
Either party, or whatever media, using and misusing such facts to support what are ultimately moral intuitions only serves to pollute the facts. It does not matter at all whether one conceives of anything as "biological" or "a choice" or whatever, because the ultimate question is not about the cause but whether and why one "ought" or "ought not" allow something. No amount of evidence matters there unless one cares about the evidence of human wellbeing, such as a consequentialist. Which, again, has nothing to do with any given etiology of any given phenotype.
How can you manage to type so much but say so little of substance? It's like reading ChatGPT.
It’s epigenetic. Mostly influenced by natal hormone levels.
proof it
Studies have shown that homosexual men have extremely similar brain physiology to women
could we just not inject testosterone into them to make the brain more male?
Theoretically, yes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organizational-Activational_Hypothesis
nah, they would turn into bears and consume bear gay porn, man, do you think all homosexuals are like Elton John? nope, they would be more masculine, more aggressive and then choose a guys ass over a fine pussy
No. Studies show some parts of their brains resemble that of straight women. Their brains are not extremely similar to women's. Lesbian brains are more similar to straight men's than gay men's brains are to straight women's.
I can fix her
There are no gay hunter-gatherers tho
Of course there was. With homosexuals you would get the benefit of having extra adults in the social group at a fraction of the cost of resources since they're not breeding. You just can't have hunter-gatherer groups *exclusively made* of homosexuals. As long as you have at least some straights in the group it works fine, better then an exclusively straight group in some ways.
There aren't. There are no gay hunter-gatherers despite the political claims that homosexuals exist in all human populations
how would you know if there are no gay hunter-gatherers? Seems impossible to prove
There is no evidence of gay hunter gatherers. There is evidence that homosexuality doesn't exist in at least some hunter-gatherer societies plus studies that predict homosexuality is at least more common in agropastoral societies than in hunter-gatherer ones
>There is evidence that homosexuality doesn't exist in at least some hunter-gatherer societies
We know next to nothing about hunter-gatherer societies. It's absolutely impossible to prove or disprove something like this.
>There is no evidence
How the fuck do you prove a guy liked cock with fossils and dirt paintings? Unless you found two skeletons doing doggie style there is nothing to pinpoint ya or na.
then how can you say there were no gay hunter-gathers?
There are modern hunter-gatherer tribes. The khoisan are extensively studied for example.
The American Indian tribes encountered after the New World was discovered were largely hunter-gatherers and ALL of them are well recorded to have accepted homosexual practices
>ALL of them are well recorded to have accepted homosexual practices
Kek sure. Just like trannies made up that "two spirit" bullshit to promote transsexualism acceptance
>Kek sure. Just like trannies made up that "two spirit" bullshit to promote transsexualism acceptance
It's literally in most contemporary sources. Off the top of my head I think Bernal Diaz del Castillo was horrified with the amount of gay sex the savage natives were up to for one thing but its literally everywhere in the sources written by god fearing men not some libtards
There's all kinds of gay tribesmen. Remote tribes have heaps of weird sex and do all kinds of weird shit that would probably land someone in jail in the first world
https://www.oddee.com/item_98435.aspx
I just posted an article about a paper that show societies where homosexuality very likely doesn't exist plus a study that shows homosexuality is less prevalent in HG societies than agropastoral ones. I think they're more accurate and less biased than the cheap article you linked
I just shared that website because I thought it was common knowledge that didn't need journal articles to back up the statements. There's lots of evidence of homosexuality in tribes. Here's a journal article that mentions homosexuality in sambian tribes in the abstract
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/comparative-studies-in-society-and-history/article/abs/rituals-of-manhood-male-initiation-in-papua-new-guinea-edited-by-herdt-gilbert-h-berkeley-los-angeles-london-university-of-california-press-1982/20A41FC4193995005C971496FF35E4C5
But there's lots of examples on the related wiki page which talks about Egypt and Greece and various notable people
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_homosexuality
Sambians aren't hunter-gathering people
I was just giving examples of ancient people but if you need specifically hunter gather people then here you go, it took all of 15 seconds to find evidence of homosexual hunter gatherers
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4534200/
And here's a bunch of others
https://psychology.stackexchange.com/questions/29290/are-there-gay-and-transgender-hunter-gatherers
I'm just genuinely baffled he believes that statement on the basis of an article in The Atlantic about two ethnic groups in central Africa. Just two. To conclude "Doesn't exist in any hunter-gatherer society". I can't even fathom that fucking leap of a generalization.
...
And then he cites a study arguing prevalence. Not that it doesn't exist. You're dealing with a true galaxy brain here anon. Wish you luck.
I went and got the text of that article from The Atlantic he referenced, too. The title is basically mistaken/misleading if not an outright lie. Like the Gebusi and other cultures, there's homosexual behavior they just do not have a word for "exclusive" same-sex relationships. Not surprising given exceptionally high mortality rates in the region. So he was wrong on both counts. Jesus Christ how smoothbrain is this guy.
Goddamn you dumbasses. Read the paper referenced in the atlantic
Dude. They, like a lot of other tribes without a concept of strict monogamy OR tribes with exceptionally high child mortality/mortality e.g. gebusi, those two, and many others, they still engage in homosexual activity. They just "do not have a word" for "homosexual" as a sexual orientation as we do. Having sex to father children happened a lot historically even with gay men. Happened in Rome. Happens in India.
ALSO: You didn't answer why you appear to have not even read the TITLE of your second citation. I did read it asshole. You should read more than that one article about those tribes.
You absolute brain dead homosexual. You didn't read the paper and yet you keep insisting they practice gay behavior because you want it to be so. Spoiler: They don't even know how male-male sexual acts work. They don't know how masturbation works. They only practice penis in vagina
Homosexuality is clearly epigenetic in nature. The harsh conditions and lifestyle of primitive humans probably prevents homosexuality from appearing.
Doesn’t really matter either way. If some guy chose to fuck another dude, what’s wrong with that?
disease, rectal damage, decadent
comical
Literally no one said there is something wrong with that. Why are you feeling threatened?
Female homosexuals don't exist. Nature would never let wombs go to waste. Lesbians prefer women but are capable of substancial attraction to males
How would you explain FtM then?
They are just mentally ill. Interesting thing is: Some are lesbians and remain lesbians, some identify as gay men and some identified as lesbians prior to HRT, then go through a complete shift and start identifying as gay men and have sex with men only after HRT. Some researchers wonder if the gay "men" ones have autoandrophilia, like some men have autogynephilia
>Female homosexuals don't exist
you should go outside more often pal. There are bisexual women and there are totally homosexual women too.
Read the scientific literature retard
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-0-387-09556-1_3
>Nature would never let wombs go to waste.
In the past, lesbians would have married men anyway. Nowadays, they use artificial insemination. Nature really doesn't let wombs go to waste.
Darwinism has been debunked fascist chud
Nature isn't perfect. Also, genes care about raw numbers getting into the future. A gay is fine if their help ensures the survival of 2+ of their siblings' kids. If your gay brother abuses the neighbour kids (and not yours) and they turn out gay, that means more breeding chances for you sons ect ect... There's a ton of reasons for some relatively low level of homosexuality to appear in a community and not destabilize overall reproduction.
Why is the female gay face more attractive than the female straight face? Is that just me?
see
the heterosexual female face is the botched down by your average Karen who gave birth to 5 children and is old and fat as a pig.
gay female is the phenomenon of young ones.
Am I a fag for liking lesbian faces? Like unironically I thought I was just an unlucky uncle from having crushes on so many "lesbians" but that composite image is literally the faces of woman I've crushed on
if its biological then a lot of conservative people shouldn´t be as butthurt as they are with homosexual media. Well, an AI is trained, so, it could have a lot of mistakes, you can look not as manly as some other dude and maybe the AI could label you as a homosexual, also, there are manly homosexuals, so i dont trust that kind of technology yet to determine those things.
Age is the confounding variable
Please everyone shut the fuck up and actually read a single paper for once in your life: https://www.gsb.stanford.edu/faculty-research/publications/deep-neural-networks-are-more-accurate-humans-detecting-sexual
That is not what that project could evidence. Nobody does anybody any favors by misrepresenting evidence or mindlessly consuming inept media blurbs made for clickbait. No shit gay men on dating websites and openly gay on facebook posting well groomed face pictures probably are easily identifiable by a model on the basis of grooming and expressions. There was no factor analysis done in this paper.
, we would like to warn our readers against misinterpreting or overinterpreting this study’s findings. First, the fact that the faces of gay men and lesbians are, on average gender atypical, does not imply that all gay men are more feminine than all heterosexual men, or that there are no gay men with extremely masculine facial features (and vice versa in the case of lesbians). The differences in femininity observed in this study were subtle, spread across many facial features, and apparent only when examining averaged images of many faces. Second, our results in no way indicate that sexual orientation can be determined from faces by humans. In fact, Study 4 confirms that humans are rather inaccurate when distinguishing between facial images of gay and heterosexual individuals. Finally, interpreting classification accuracy is not trivial and is often counterintuitive. The AUC = .91 does not imply that 91% of gay men in a given population can be identified, or that the classification results are correct 91% of the time. The performance of the classifier depends on the desired trade-off between precision (e.g., the fraction of gay people among those classified as gay) and recall (e.g., the fraction of gay people in the population correctly identified as gay). Aiming for high precision reduces recall, and vice versa.
ironic considering you don't understand a damn thing about this data. when two gaussian distributions have different peaks, of-fucking-course there will be some overlap in their tails, and even with their 68% confidence bands. nobody is disputing that here. people are talking about how the peaks are unaligned, and where the average members of those peaks fall. there are real, discernable, statistical, quantifiable differences between the facial structure of your average fag and average normie. that's indisputable, and i suspect you're just a seething homosexual in the closet who's upset that he's exposed as having faggy facial characteristics.
>there are real, discernable, statistical, quantifiable differences between the facial structure of your average fag and average normie.
...And?
>ironic considering you don't understand a damn thing about this data.
What's ironic is your claiming this, and then writing such an irrelevant pile of garbage.
struck a nerve? i'd bet good money that you do some really gay shit and yet fancy yourself straight.
where is the proof that this is real? as i recall the team behind this conveniently chose to not show the tech to anyone because it could be used for bad purposes. anyone with a political agenda can claim to have proven something but withhold the evidence for a seemingly admirable reason and reinforce their own position. i think it's bs
post your face, i'll let you know if you look like a fag
1) AI cannot actually do a good job of detecting it, even in the most general sense (someone who is totally straight versus totally gay), never-mind more specific circumstances
2) Facial features are not solely determined by your genes, retard.
3) Certain features, like eyebrows, are deliberately manipulated by people. They correlate with being gay based on fleeting fashion trends.
4) This study failed to properly control for weight. Literally, the straight composites are basically heavier versions of the gay ones. Gays are thinner due to being disproportionately younger and wealthier.
in summary:
>gay men get their eyebrows done
>straight men are fatter
>gay men are happier (eyes smile more)
>straight women are happier (smile more)
>lesbians are fatter
>lesbians have weird fucking eyebrows
an in further summary, the evidence suggests dating women makes you miserable kek. a fact all men know. women, can't live with them, can't live without them. their pussy feels good, and their nagging feels bad.
that's a gay male face but the femoid is just a composite of "i love the hustle and bustle of the city" whyte girls who're on the pill and like totally lgbtgarotflomgwtfbbq+++++
Doesn't. I do not actually care. I wrote that with respect to the notion someone is unhappy with their life, as perhaps knowing a broader context would help. Same as I wouldn't care if people were "curing" themselves as heterosexuality. The more freedoms technology and economy give people the better off we will be in the long run.
what doesn't?
>what doesn't?
I suppose it is a little ambiguous. My mistake.
>How does people curing themselves of homosexuality affect your life?
I meant "Doesn't affect my life". I do not care nor would care if people could swap sexualities. Same as I wouldn't care if people were "curing" themselves of heterosexuality. Either way the question does not apply to what I wrote here
given one presently does not exist.
Obviously any adult who cares about random fags fucking each other in the window they're spying through is a fag themself by the fact that they're spying through a window?
You don't get it. People are born with one of those 2 faces. The man on the right won't be able to get the healthy looking woman on the right, and he won't be able stand the woman on the left, so he'll just become gay, and he now has all the institutions of society urging him to do so. It's about sexual capital. If someone has more sexual capital on the gay market then they will go there just to feel valuable.
Sorry, I got the women mixed up
So if you've been a carpenter for 20 years, you can look at other people that have been carpenters for 20 years and you will know, because of their physical characteristics that have been forged via environmental adaptation over decades that they too are carpenters. No DNA required. You have hands like a carpenter, arms like a carpenter, shoulders like a carpenter, your brow even drips sweat like a carpenter, the slope of your back is that of a carpenter's.
The two men in the middle of the photo are identical twins. Don't let the lack of creepy "dress alike" fool you, the facial features are the same (plus you can do a reverse image lookup for verification if you wish). The people on the edges of the photos are their spouses. Identical twins, one married to a cute petite straight white woman and the other married to a large gay black man. Something happened, probably in their childhood, to make them deviate so greatly on this very fundamental part of each man's sexual identity.
The twin to that post is this post, which actually contains the image referred to in its post. These posts however are not identical twin posts.
Did you know that parasites are capable of changing the appearance of their host to make them more attractive? this has been observed in STD's
notice the subtle differences in facial structure in each twin. I suspect this is the effect of the parasite.
>I suspect this is the effect of the parasite.
Or that he is drinking water and not a apple-tini or beers.
>Did you know that parasites are capable of changing the appearance of their host to make them more attractive? this has been observed in STD's
Why would you just go on the internet and lie like that anon
look it up and find out for yourself. It's true.
I can't look up something you pulled out your ass. "parasites cause the gay" I mean really come on that's almost as dumb as guy who can't read his own citation titles
https://peerj.com/articles/13122/
Parasites cause the gay is just my hypothesis, but STDs can change people's facial structure.
So let's assume you read this. Let's engage in pure fantasy and assume you can understand it. Explain to me why, exactly, you believe the purported differences are not wholly explained by lower BMI?
>increased facial symmetry
>caused by lower BMI
I think you should start taking dewormers.
>I think you should start taking dewormers.
Given you apparently don't know facial adiposity contributes to facial asymmetry, you should pump that shit right into your veins by your standards. By the truck load.
no matter what you say, you can't dispute that having some types of parasites makes you measurably more attractive and sexually active. Doesn't matter what the mechanism is.
>no matter what you say, you can't dispute that having some types of parasites makes you measurably more attractive and sexually active. Doesn't matter what the mechanism is.
You literally can't say that, because you cannot attribute causal mechanism from that study. I just pointed out something even a dipshit like you would realize was a problem. If you don't know why you haven't the first clue about how to read any literature whatever.
Not him but I think it's a novel idea that isn't completely baseless. Hormonal balance is intimately tied to gut health. This would belong in a similar vein to fecal transplants having physiological effects - still not out of the realm of possibility.
>Not him but I think it's a novel idea that isn't completely baseless.
In the sense that it does not comport with anything known with respect to human effects of parasitic infection nor sexuality correlates it lacks facial validity. That effectively means it is completely baseless. Sounding possible does not mean it is even superficially valid upon any degree of investigation in either field.
>This would belong in a similar vein to fecal transplants having physiological effects - still not out of the realm of possibility.
There are many, many ways the hypothesis is falsified. Easily, the fact homosexuality is most prevalent in nations with the least infectious disease burdens including parasites. Requiring some familiarity, the fact nothing of the hormone hypothesis has ever been shown to be significant with respect to predicting outcomes of any substantial effect size. Hence many literature reviews like the random one I pulled out before
Can you go into more detail?
With respect to what? If you want more detail on the dead-ends of sexual orientation hypotheses I pointed out the post with a relevant link. So what more do you want about what subject?
It's the lack of (methyl)mercury. They are never going to admit that. It's also the cause of obesity.
Note the lack of either in Japan.
>Promiscuous homosexual pretends that getting HIV makes him hot
Absolutely disgusting and pathetic. have a nice day more quickly than with aids homosexual
hang on, this doesn't even make sense. How will taking dewormers cure my supposed lack of knowledge? I'm beginning to suspect you are both a homosexual AND a pseud.
>How will taking dewormers cure my supposed lack of knowledge?
It makes about as much sense as your retarded /misc/tard conspiracy theory about parasites. That's the joke.
>I-I was only PRETENDING to be retarded
>YOU CAN'T EVEN READ THE LITERATURE
This is becoming very sad
I've never seen someone work so hard at being so dumb
You homosexuals talk of homosexuality so fucking much. You dull little fuckers.
> detect a queer their face with high accuracy
is it a man's face buried deep into another dude's ass?
Gay people have forbidden dimensionality which leads to their facial structure being lesser. Not than someone else, but than what it would be in more ideal dimensionality. Often referred to as being a homosexual.
>homosexual male looks whiter and more intelligent
>homosexual female looks whiter and hotter
If you hate gays, then you hate white people.
Conservatives on suicide watch.
>homosexual female looks whiter and hotter
You are literally the only anon in this thread who doesn't think the lez face is hotter
Wait, I can't read. Ignore me.
>claims the paper says the thing
>claims to have read the paper
>doesn't just quote the paper and cite exactly where the quote is from
You haven't read the paper.
The title of the paper is something along the lines of "Sex and searching for children among Aka and Ngandu people" since sex among them is all about reproduction and birthing children. If you search it up on google it thinks you're searching for pedo stuff
>claims the paper says the thing
>claims to have read the paper
>doesn't just quote the paper and cite exactly where the quote is from
>still doesn't provide a single quote from the paper
You still haven't read the paper.
>You absolute brain dead homosexual. You didn't read the paper and yet you keep insisting they practice gay behavior because you want it to be so. Spoiler: They don't even know male-male sexual acts work. They only practice penis in vagina
I told you I read the paper. I know what it says. I'm saying "so the fuck what". It doesn't evidence your point, and if you read OTHER PAPERS you'd realize why isolated claims like these need to be viewed with intense skepticism. I already gave you a reason for that: OTHER CULTURES in the exact same conditions have homosexual practices as well.
But fine, assume I'm a complete brain dead moron. How, exactly, does an exception therefore lead you to conclude "therefore true in every case" contrary to all the published literature on it?
If that didn't prove you gay behavior is absent among those cultures, nothing will. You don't want to be proved wrong cause you're gay
You know what? I don't give a shit.
YOU answer TO ME why YOU conclude from ONE PAPER with an example of TWO TRIBES that for ALL HUNTER-GATHERERS homosexuality does not exist.
>Absolutely seeing faggit
You can clearly see smidgens of the glasses rings on the gay composite.
Depending on the lense they can make the eyes appear bigger or smaller, therefore the images given to the AI are not accurate. The hetero compositions could of been made up of glasses wearing participants (I slightly see it as a possibility on the hetero female composite) but you can clearly see it on the homosexual composites more, therefore it skews the results even more then the hetero participants.
Because they used glasses without any controls they've thrown the validity of this experiment out of the window, unfortunately. Yes, the jaws are probably accurate but the eyes and their position are very important in relation to masculine/feminine proportioning and over all health.
I'd love to see this repeated without glasses.
You mean a kind man that women naturally hate and starts to have issues instead of improving?
Or the gay (no such thing) woman who acts smug because fucke le patriarchy for the pic?