# Gender Disobedience

Sissy Baby Transvestite Sissy Reed Barrow Sissy Dresses in public Sissy Fairy Sissy Transvestite Sissy public opinion TG dressed like a 3 year old Sissy Dresses and Baby Diaper Public exposure as a Sissy I was born a little Sissy Gir

27 replies to this topic

### #1 SissyReedBarrow

SissyReedBarrow

Curious

• Members
• 3 posts

Posted 05 March 2015 - 06:54 AM

Honestly I really do not go about my daily life looking to insight others or for tge sole purpose of getting a rise out of others bigotry and narrow minded views.I understand social conformity and social standards but with all this said, some of us are being discriminated against with out a voice to speak in our defense.

WA state supposedly has very strong anti-discrimination laws in place and from my understanding it states that all transgender people have the right to dress in what ever gender role, style, age that matches there percieved personality.

I just feel i need to add this to, i take a lot of pride in my appearance and have never heard a negative comment while out in public, but I do get lots of compliments. Sorry ok so i dress like that of a 3-5 year old little Sissy Girl in very pretty Sissy Party dresses complete with black patent Mary Jane Doll shoes and white ankle socks. I'm always 100% fully dressed in very nice and expensive clothing and I'm a very sweet caring thoughtful kind and honest Sissy and well i need your expertise on whether I'm breaking any laws or not in WA. State.

Sincerely

Sissy

### #2 Buffy

Buffy

Resident Slayer

• 8946 posts

Posted 05 March 2015 - 09:38 AM

Welcome to Hypography, Sissy!

The only laws that might affect you are those related to indecency--that is exposing parts that people consider "private"--and masks--where some states have laws against concealing one's identity in public.

From your description and avatar, while some might not consider your attire "fashionable" it's certainly not indecent. These laws are subject to changing mores anyway, but you don't sound like you're even close to the debate points on this topic.

Washington--unlike California where I am and have actually run afoul of it--has no laws against masks in public. These laws are more than a bit controversial because there are both medical (see the above link) and religious excuses for wearing "masks," and there are challenges against such laws on both fronts.

We're fortunately in an era where protection of civil rights of the LGBTQ community are being increasingly recognized, but that being said, as we've seen with civil rights for people of color, people's attitudes often lag well behind changes in the law. The situation in places like Ferguson, MO are actually quite shocking 50 years after the Civil Rights Act and 150 years after the Civil War. LGBTQ people are going through the same sort of lack of public acceptance, especially in situations like yours where the ability to be identified is very visible.

Conversely however, what really opened the door for LGBTQ people has been exactly that: visibility. The fact that more and more people have discovered they have relatives and friends who they know are "normal" has changed people's attitudes.

It's just that we still have a long way to go against the bigots.

The worst sin toward our fellow creatures is not to hate them, but to be indifferent to them: that's the essence of inhumanity,

Buffy

### #3 LaurieAG

LaurieAG

Explaining

• Members
• 1553 posts

Posted 06 March 2015 - 10:47 PM

Here's a link that might help explain why a gender identity as a little girl is probably a grey area in WA law and even internationally. You may be getting backlash because people might think you are trying to attract little girls.

https://www.humanrig...dressing-sexual

8.3( b ) Gender Identity: This refers to how an individual identifies in their own gender – for example as a man, woman, transgender, transsexual, intersex, genderqueer, non-binary.

### #4 SissyReedBarrow

SissyReedBarrow

Curious

• Members
• 3 posts

Posted 07 March 2015 - 12:59 AM

Living my life openly honestly and visibly out of the shadows.

### #5 LaurieAG

LaurieAG

Explaining

• Members
• 1553 posts

Posted 10 March 2015 - 06:07 AM

That may be so Sissy but do you honestly think that any Australian state would let a test trial set a precedent that allowed any man dressed up like a little girl, however well groomed, to groom young girls in public with impunity?

By all means continue to do what you like to do openly, honestly and visibly out of the shadows, but please do not think that anybody has a right to do anything they like in public.

### #6 HydrogenBond

HydrogenBond

Creating

• Banned
• 3058 posts

Posted 18 March 2015 - 06:01 AM

Natural selection optimizes form with function and function with form.  For example, the physical attributes or the form of a cat, allow it to express it innate abilities and skills. The cat's nature will make use of this form. This is optimized for natural selection.

If a cat somehow thought he was a dog, and therefore stopped using his claws and stopped climbing trees for self defense, he would no longer be optimized, because his form and function will diverge. He might manage this divergence, in the house of his owner; needs a human prosthesis, but he would be at a disadvantage in terms of natural selection. Transgender is a class example of a divergence of form and function. This might work in the owners home; needs a social prosthesis, but the divergence breaks ties with the optimization needs of natural selection.

Let me give a different example. Say I thought I could fly like a bird, by flapping my arms. This is an example of divergence, where my assumed function of flying, does not coincide with my natural form as a human. If I insist on this, people will react to me, like I was of not sound mind, because they would see a divergence. They will not say he is a bird trapped in a human body, since this has not yet been subjectivity conditioned by social propaganda.

The dressing like a little girl creates a divergence of sort, between the age/sex and outward expression; putting wings on bird man, that will get a natural reaction; divergence cause and effect.

What i don't understand is, why liberal culture prefers that everyone diverge from a natural reaction, in favor of  appeasing social divergence.  It like encouraging the bird man who might one day try to fly and hurt himself. It is better to stand the convergence line if the goal is to help him.

Edited by HydrogenBond, 18 March 2015 - 06:09 AM.

### #7 Buffy

Buffy

Resident Slayer

• 8946 posts

Posted 18 March 2015 - 09:32 AM

Natural selection optimizes form with function and function with form.  For example, the physical attributes or the form of a cat, allow it to express it innate abilities and skills. The cat's nature will make use of this form. This is optimized for natural selection.

No HBond, Nature does not "optimize" anything. Natural selection simply says that "divergences" (if you insist on using a non-scientific colloquialism), may not survive in the gene pool because they contain disadvantages relative to the current environment, that prevent them from being propagated to future generations either because the organism was not able to survive long, or there is no residual benefit to the group as a whole over time (which is an explanation for why homosexuality persists).

If a cat somehow thought he was a dog, and therefore stopped using his claws and stopped climbing trees for self defense, he would no longer be optimized, because his form and function will diverge. He might manage this divergence, in the house of his owner; needs a human prosthesis, but he would be at a disadvantage in terms of natural selection. Transgender is a class example of a divergence of form and function. This might work in the owners home; needs a social prosthesis, but the divergence breaks ties with the optimization needs of natural selection.

Self-image has nothing to do with "form and function diverging." If the poor thing stood his ground and hissed when a dog chased him, he'd be more likely to be eaten.

But I've seen some pretty big cats scare the crap out of small dogs, and you should see what they can do with their very sharp teeth--something that presumably a "cat that thought he was a dog" would indeed use as an alternate conflict resolution strategy.

There is no "optimization" in Natural Selection, period. It doesn't "need" anything.

Just about the only thing that we can say about this particular hypothetical is that the particular cat in question would either be lucky enough to survive enough encounters to change their mind and go back to behaving like a tree-climbing cat, formulate the required alternate conflict resolution strategies, or else succumb to it's injuries.

Now the thing that completely invalidates your argument is that in fact, on an island with only 20 kilo cats who thought they were dogs and chihuahuas, I'd be worried about the chihuahuas going extinct.

[To those watching this, it's a good idea to point out that Mr. Bond likes to make up stuff about science so that it fits in with his conservative world view, as we're about to see: ]

Let me give a different example. Say I thought I could fly like a bird, by flapping my arms. This is an example of divergence, where my assumed function of flying, does not coincide with my natural form as a human. If I insist on this, people will react to me, like I was of not sound mind, because they would see a divergence. They will not say he is a bird trapped in a human body, since this has not yet been subjectivity conditioned by social propaganda.

Well, no, it's a pretty stupid idea if you actually believed that, and likely you'd try it out, and depending upon how great a height your first attempt was taken from, you may or may not survive to allow you to change your mind about the efficacy of using your arms as wings.

You having a stupid idea is not "divergence of form and function," it's simply a stupid idea, and reality tends to get in the way of those persisting for any length of time.

An abundance of stupid ideas can lead to a particular organism finding their genes pruned from the gene pool, but unfortunately nature is pretty forgiving at times, and silly arguments like the one you have posed here keep regenerating.

Now how other people see you is of course an interesting issue isn't it? Doesn't that say more about them than about you?

I mean you spend a lot of time coming up with silly arguments that turn science inside out that justify your conservative world view. Do you care about that? Never really seems to bother you that you are made to look foolish for making stuff up out of thin air.

Which brings us back to the OP:

The dressing like a little girl creates a divergence of sort, between the age/sex and outward expression; putting wings on bird man, that will get a natural reaction; divergence cause and effect.

There may be a case for selection in this case, but the only reason for that is because bigots insist on enforcing normative ("non-divergent") behavior on all members of the group. In that respect the "divergence" is indeed subject to selective actions precisely because the environment CURRENTLY tolerates those bigots and allows them to beat up or kill the non-normative members at will.

This is not a matter of "optimizing" in fact, enforcing normative behavior is often the primary reason for extinction when the environment changes. If a LOT of people decided they could fly with their arms, there is a bit of a benefit to the group in encouraging normative (non-flapping-arms-to-fly) behavior, since the group benefits from not having their gene pool greatly limited with a large portion of the population eliminating itself by smashing their heads into concrete.

Conversely however, if a lot of people decided to wear dresses and the society allowed those people to be attacked/maimed/killed, well, we would not have Scotland.

What i don't understand is, why liberal culture prefers that everyone diverge from a natural reaction, in favor of  appeasing social divergence.  It like encouraging the bird man who might one day try to fly and hurt himself. It is better to stand the convergence line if the goal is to help him.

One effect of "liberal culture" is that there is an INtolerance for enforcing silly "norms."

In terms of natural selection, that means that "divergences" from the norm are tolerated which allows the gene pool to become diverse and allows the population an increased chance to survive changes in environment that favor the divergences that have developed.

"Conservative culture" which enforces favoring a very narrow set of behaviors and physical attributes restricts the gene pool and results in a much lower chance for survival when Mother Nature decides to shake things up in the environment.

So, it's not really that liberal culture "appeases" social divergence, it's just that we're smart enough to know that shooting men who like to wear dresses is not really a good idea for the good of the gene pool.

Should we shoot them?

Buffy

• pgrmdave likes this

### #8 HydrogenBond

HydrogenBond

Creating

• Banned
• 3058 posts

Posted 19 March 2015 - 05:35 AM

"In terms of natural selection, that means that "divergences" from the norm are tolerated which allows the gene pool to become diverse and allows the population an increased chance to survive changes in environment that favor the divergences that have developed."

Sorry my quote button does not work properly.

Divergence for the sake of being different or being unique, although an ego impulse, does not necessarily mean an increase in the chance of survival in nature. Not all divergence is created equal. The types of divergence that are optimized for selection, will be able to meet the challenge without social prosthesis not found in nature. Nature does not need or nor does it use prosthesis, like laws or manipulation of opinions, to force a result. That is artificial selection, which can also select unnatural, if so desired, since it will prop up using resources not used by nature.

Natural divergence for change, leading to selection, still comes down to the convergence of form and function. If genetic changes occur, that alter the form, these still  need to be attach to function to be useful. If the animal gets stronger, but still thinks he is weak, there is no advantage to the strength. If he think he can fly like a bird but has no wings, this divergence will not be selected, since it creates a disadvantage. These need to coordinate, or the divergence can become a handicap.

Say we could use science and government funding to add bionic wings to the man who thought he was a bird, so he could fly, then his form would equal his function. But this did not happen naturally, but only  happen in an artificial world of imagination. This is not natural selection, even if it is possible with social resources. Nature does not do it that way.

​I still believe in choice but I also believe in maintaining a rational perspective in terms of the difference between natural and artificial selection. One should not be forced to blindly accept artificial, via law, and ignore natural selection, even if this is possible with artificial means.

I can accept the adding of bionic wings, but I have the right to say this s is not natural. I can then point out the distinction between natural and unnatural which needs artificial social additives. These additives impact the food that we feed the mind and brain, and can cause brain damage; unnatural mind. I prefer to feed the mind natural foods based on the simple logic that natural stays simple. This minimizes the needs for external resources needed to add wings for an altered reality.

Edited by HydrogenBond, 19 March 2015 - 05:43 AM.

### #9 Buffy

Buffy

Resident Slayer

• 8946 posts

Posted 19 March 2015 - 10:11 AM

Sorry my quote button does not work properly.

Well, that explains a lot. You might want to check your read button too. I'm not sure that's working either.

Divergence for the sake of being different or being unique, although an ego impulse, does not necessarily mean an increase in the chance of survival in nature. Not all divergence is created equal.

Oh my! "for the sake of being different" or "ego impulse"! Such disdain!

Guess what? Natural selection does not give a rat's pattootie about the source or "intent" of divergence: it either survives or it doesn't. And it can survive even if it doesn't immediately provide an "advantage."

The types of divergence that are optimized for selection, will be able to meet the challenge without social prosthesis not found in nature. Nature does not need or nor does it use prosthesis, like laws or manipulation of opinions, to force a result. That is artificial selection, which can also select unnatural, if so desired, since it will prop up using resources not used by nature.

Yet you use pejoratives reeking with disdain to provide the entire foundation for your arguments?

Actually you've got one interesting point: the use of the word "natural" in "Natural Selection" is a distraction, because quite often the social interactions of individuals in a population do indeed have a very strong effect on the selection process, it caters to those morons who think that humans are somehow "not at all like animals" and thus anything they do is "unnatural selection" and thus somehow "invalid."

Nope. Selection is selection, no matter how small.

So,

Say we could use science and government funding to add bionic wings to the man who thought he was a bird, so he could fly, then his form would equal his function. But this did not happen naturally, but only  happen in an artificial world of imagination. This is not natural selection, even if it is possible with social resources. Nature does not do it that way.

Your entire worldview consists of assuming that NO ONE ever experiments. They just blindly do what they think or blindly do what they're told. I guess depending on whether they're conservative or liberal.

Well, that explains a lot.

Selection happens whether there is social interaction (meddling by evil librul scientists and government minions) or not. An individual with such wings "believing" whether or not they could do something with said wings could affect that one stuck-in-the-old-way-of-thinking individual overwhelmed by their conservatism, but eventually some other individual would come a long and say "oh cool! wings!" and actually try them out.

Oh my and that's why conservativism gets selected out of the gene pool!

​I still believe in choice but I also believe in maintaining a rational perspective in terms of the difference between natural and artificial selection. One should not be forced to blindly accept artificial, via law, and ignore natural selection, even if this is possible with artificial means.

Unfortunately that's not a "rational perspective" let alone logical nor supported by actual observations in the real world (you really should visit it some time, it's quite refreshing!).

Selection can't blind itself to anything, and sorry, "artificial" means--apparently anything "human-caused" or "social"--are actually quite effective in determining selections in an environment.

By your definition, the invention of the gun and laws like "you can shoot stuff and eat it as long as it's not human" are all "artificial", but I can demonstrate quite clearly that the existence of the the two were quite effective in "selecting out" the Dodo.

I can accept the adding of bionic wings, but I have the right to say this s is not natural.

Well, you have the right to say any silly thing you want.

I can then point out the distinction between natural and unnatural which needs artificial social additives. These additives impact the food that we feed the mind and brain, and can cause brain damage; unnatural mind.

I am very happy that you will no longer sit back and allow Communist infiltration, Communist indoctrination, Communist subversion and the international Communist conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids.

I prefer to feed the mind natural foods based on the simple logic that natural stays simple. This minimizes the needs for external resources needed to add wings for an altered reality.

How granola of you.

Actually lots of nature is about altering reality. Ask these drunken birds who like fermented berries.

It would be lovely if you actually had a whiff of evidence to support any of this blathering as it might actually come up with some interesting debates.

"Having the right to say things" doesn't really count. Even in horseshoes.

Well, I've been to one world fair, a picnic, and a rodeo, and that's the stupidest thing I ever heard come over a set of earphones,

Buffy

### #10 HydrogenBond

HydrogenBond

Creating

• Banned
• 3058 posts

Posted 19 March 2015 - 02:20 PM

Let us go back to form and function and natural selection. Could you name any animals, not under the control of humans, who dissociate form and function and persist? With culture we can use resources to prop up dissociation. The point is natural does not work that way; there is no propping up. It has to stand by itself.

People want to eat natural and restore the natural environment, but allow psychological pollution. This former is needed as compensation for the latter. This is why liberals tend to push the former but allow the latter. Conservatives are not as externally driven to get natural or save the planet, because there is less need for compensation.

Edited by HydrogenBond, 19 March 2015 - 02:22 PM.

### #11 Buffy

Buffy

Resident Slayer

• 8946 posts

Posted 19 March 2015 - 07:28 PM

Let us go back to form and function and natural selection. Could you name any animals, not under the control of humans, who dissociate form and function and persist?

Um, try just about every animal species that has variation of hair or skin color and/or albinism.

That's like ALL of them, dude.

There's actually very few animals that use coloration for camouflage and it's usefulness for that purpose is limited. There's a little residual brain mechanics that might provide a familiar group identification, but the fact is that it's so malleable in so many species that it's accepted understood to be completely irrelevant in identifying species.

And seriously, what the hell good is your hair? Assuming you even have any you're as likely to evolve either more fat, higher tolerance for cold, or migrate to warmer climes as to keep it around for warmth (just look at all the hair seals seem to need to keep from getting cold).

No sir, stuff evolves and then hangs around long after it's sell by date. That's called Genetic Diversity, and it's existence is essential to the health of the gene pool.

Conservatives hate that because it does not fit in with their view of a goal of "purity" and "perfection" as some sort of end point that evolution is striving toward. Which is precisely why you keep ignoring that issue every time I bring it up.

You can't admit that it exists because it destroys you worldview, so you insist on being blind to it and refusing to acknowledge it's existence.

So, no there is no difference with the "natural," "non-human-influenced" segment of the environment:

With culture we can use resources to prop up dissociation. The point is natural does not work that way; there is no propping up. It has to stand by itself.

*Human society* and thus "culture" is and *effect* of selection! There's not this magical separate world between "man" and all the other "heathen animals."

Does "culture" affect how humans work? Sure! We come up with norms and standards of behavior that allow the *social group* to survive and thrive. That social group is as much an entity subject to selection as any microorganism is and just as integrated into it's (current!) environment.

And guess what? Most higher organisms have versions of "culture" too! What some humans pejoratively call "instinct" when describing the high-level social functions of most animals, is a lack of recognition that that "culture" we hold so high in humans is just as instinctual--and as affected by selection--as any trait like bipedalism or eyes.

But now we get to the real underlying argument that really has nothing to do with "form and function" but rather with disgust with some aspects of those evolving cultural norms:

People want to eat natural and restore the natural environment, but allow psychological pollution. This former is needed as compensation for the latter. This is why liberals tend to push the former but allow the latter. Conservatives are not as externally driven to get natural or save the planet, because there is less need for compensation.

...and gosh you're seriously saying that liberals use "eating natural food" as a way to justify "psychological pollution?"

Dear, you've obviously been consuming too much fluoride. It can be toxic in large quantities.

But thank you for admitting that conservatives don't give a crap about the planet. That much is obvious.

And our "artificial culture" is poisoning our brains with corrupt unnatural ideas that are leading us to try to modify human behaviors that destroy the environment.

Selection does NOT have an "intent": if we don't find cultural mechanism to keep from poisoning our environment, selection will happily select us out because we've destroyed our own environment.

Think that's purely a human trait? Look at the extremes of life cycle that the locust has had to evolve, precisely because every two to five years. It survives as a species only because it's come up with this incredibly torturous life cycle, that interestingly enough does not allow for the development of culture.

That's why we don't have smart locusts walking around inventing new consumer products.

Reality has a well-known liberal bias,

Buffy

### #12 sman

sman

Questioning

• Members
• 229 posts

Posted 20 March 2015 - 10:08 AM

Does "culture" affect how humans work? Sure! We come up with norms and standards of behavior that allow the *social group* to survive and thrive. That social group is as much an entity subject to selection as any microorganism is and just as integrated into it's (current!) environment.

The passage I bolded is actually quite controversial.

### #13 Buffy

Buffy

Resident Slayer

• 8946 posts

Posted 20 March 2015 - 10:52 AM

The passage I bolded is actually quite controversial.

Well sure, "controversial" not in the sense that selection does not occur in social groupings, but that the mechanism and even measurable side-effects can differ, sometimes significantly. From the abstract of the link you provided:

We propose here population structure as the main criterion of compatibility between kin selection and group selection. The latter is now evidently a pattern among others within a more general ‘multilevel selection’ theory. Different explanations and patterns are not mutually exclusive. Such a Darwinian pluralism is not a piece of the past, but a path into the future. A challenge in philosophy of biology will be to figure out the logical structure of this emerging pluralistic theory of evolution in such contentious debates.

It would be a mistake to draw from this the notion that what social groups do does not at all parallel "Natural" Selection any more than the existence of Punctuated Equilibrium "proves" that Evolution doesn't exist.

That's weird; it's like reading Dickens without seeing the individual letters or even words,

Buffy

### #14 HydrogenBond

HydrogenBond

Creating

• Banned
• 3058 posts

Posted 20 March 2015 - 01:46 PM

Um, try just about every animal species that has variation of hair or skin color and/or albinism.

That's like ALL of them, dude.

There's actually very few animals that use coloration for camouflage and it's usefulness for that purpose is limited. There's a little residual brain mechanics that might provide a familiar group identification, but the fact is that it's so malleable in so many species that it's accepted understood to be completely irrelevant in identifying species.

The function of this form is more for identification. Each critter in the group will have separate personalities, and this form helps the function of knowing who is who.

Consider this;  Modern women spend a lot of time making up the surface of their bodies. I am not saying all or only women do this. Some men also do this, with some men more than women. But on the average, the female will have more lotions, potions, scents, colors, and texture to add.

This is not needed for identification, since one can tell who other humans are there are even without it. There is a different reason for this. The form that is created, is designed to imply the function of enhanced beauty; alter the form and the function can change.

Many men will approach this the other way and alter their function with a lie; I am the boss, so their form will appear better; confidence. Each mating strategy works because of the underlying assumption that human will use; form=function. If form did not equal function, there would be no instinctive reason that seems to work again and again.

Edited by HydrogenBond, 20 March 2015 - 01:49 PM.

### #15 sman

sman

Questioning

• Members
• 229 posts

Posted 20 March 2015 - 01:52 PM

It would be a mistake to draw from this the notion that what social groups do does not at all parallel "Natural" Selection any more than the existence of Punctuated Equilibrium "proves" that Evolution doesn't exist.

Nevertheless, that social groups are subject to selection in competition with other social groups is an idea that many biologists still disagree with. The controversy is ... rather heated.

It's a debate I'm following. Not that it has anything to do with the trollish debate that's been hijacked from the OP in here. Completely off-topic on my part. But I feel a bit of disobedience is harmless, sometimes even helpful.

### #16 Buffy

Buffy

Resident Slayer

• 8946 posts

Posted 20 March 2015 - 03:21 PM

The function of this form is more for identification. Each critter in the group will have separate personalities, and this form helps the function of knowing who is who.

As you are ignoring the point about non-human species, I'm assuming you're incapable of understanding what I said.

To reiterate: coloring in non-human species is a form without function that persists. Ergo, you have no clue as to what you're talking about.

Consider this;  Modern women spend a lot of time making up the surface of their bodies. I am not saying all or only women do this. Some men also do this, with some men more than women. But on the average, the female will have more lotions, potions, scents, colors, and texture to add.

Thank you for demonstrating sexism, chauvinism, and prejudice! Another example of a form which persists in spite of the fact that its function is actually something that should be selected against!

This is not needed for identification, since one can tell who other humans are there are even without it. There is a different reason for this. The form that is created, is designed to imply the function of enhanced beauty; alter the form and the function can change.

Did'ya hear yourself say that? "...the form and the function can change?" That implies that either can--at least for some period of time--exist in isolation!

This is kind of the core of your inability to understand the underlying issue: you've bonded yourself to the idea that because there are obviously oodles of examples of form having a function, that form cannot under any circumstances exist without performing a function.

This is an error not only in understanding the action of selection in Evolution, but even an error in understanding predicate logic. That is $(function\rightarrow form)\neq(form\rightarrow function)$

And as far as actual examples are concerned there are oodles of examples of useless forms throughout the natural world precisely because--as I said in an earlier post--that "inefficiency" of keeping around "junk" allows some of that random junk to all of a sudden have a critical "function" in survival due to a shift in environment.

I do understand that you have philosophical problems with that sort of thing--conservatives do not like disorder or messiness--and as a result I certainly don't expect to convince you of anything, I only want to make clear to the audience here how silly your argument is.

Many men will approach this the other way and alter their function with a lie; I am the boss, so their form will appear better; confidence. Each mating strategy works because of the underlying assumption that human will use; form=function. If form did not equal function, there would be no instinctive reason that seems to work again and again.

Actually, being a jerk is a very unsuccessful "mating strategy," and usually only appears to be to those who think they need to be bigger jerks in order to impress the ladies.

Got it. How's that workin' for ya?

And if it ain't working too good--or more likely that what you call "working" is actually just attracting that girl you wish you hadn't started a conversation with at a party--then you've got yet another example of a pretty function-free form, or at least one with a function that has a pretty good chance of getting selected out at the next meteor hit/ice age.

It's origami: that's Spanish for goose,

Buffy

### #17 Buffy

Buffy

Resident Slayer

• 8946 posts

Posted 20 March 2015 - 03:29 PM

Nevertheless, that social groups are subject to selection in competition with other social groups is an idea that many biologists still disagree with. The controversy is ... rather heated.

It's a debate I'm following. Not that it has anything to do with the trollish debate that's been hijacked from the OP in here. Completely off-topic on my part. But I feel a bit of disobedience is harmless, sometimes even helpful.

Oh disobedience can be very helpful, and thank you for bringing it up. Feel free to start a thread on the topic!

Interesting that you would use Dawkins' review of EO Wilson for the example link, as Dawkins actually is getting a lot of derision from other Biologists precisely because of the stand he takes here! Poor guy is getting thrashed a lot between this and the aggressive anti-religion stance (which is far more justifiable). He's an interesting character, and I follow him on Twitter where he's very active (and no, he's not dead! #RIPRichardDawkins).

Natural selection, the blind, unconscious, automatic process which Darwin discovered, and which we now know is the explanation for the existence and apparently purposeful form of all life, has no purpose in mind. It has no mind and no mind’s eye. It does not plan for the future. It has no vision, no foresight, no sight at all. If it can be said to play the role of watchmaker in nature, it is the blind watchmaker,

Buffy

• sman likes this