men have to kiss ass as much as they ever did if not more, in fact a LOT more, thanks to women having higher social status and men having lower. There is no gender blending where it counts.

as much as men are begging for it from stupid fat women, and they are not.

just like they always have, seriously?

it would be interesting to see what would be left of science if this "logic" were applied across the board. It seems a little too obvious to have to say it but I guess it isn't: the fact that something is complex or needs to be done carefully doesn't automatically mean it shouldn't or can't be done at all, if someone claims that it does they either have an ulterior motive or aren't very bright, or both.

well I guess the fundies have been right all along. Now anything that can't be duplicated in a lab isn't science apparently. Pretty much any scientific approach to human behavior is out which is pretty convenient for those who have the power to impose their views.

not every gay man is feminine of course but the same biological factors which produce masculinity will TEND to produce an attraction to women and those which produce femininity will TEND to produce an attraction to men. You hear weird shit like "since only 50-60% of women with the highest testosterone levels are lesbians we have proven that gender and sexual identity are completely unconnected" really? So a lot of the gay discomfort with drag queens may have an "ulterior" motive.

I also don't think the "hypersexuality" of gay culture is due to oppression, it is simply due to the fact that all the participants are male. Straight culture would be equally hypersexual if women would cooperate. The fact that there are (apparently) so many gay men complaining about "too much flamboyant sex" sounding for all the world like feminist prudes would seem to lend support to the theory that there IS at least some connection between gender characteristics and sexual identity.

Declaring anything and everything that you want to be true to be untestable can do the same thing.

"My darlings, I've met many men from all over the world. I can honestly say I've never, ever seen an attractive man bitching about feminism"

"calling someone spoiled is a way to (devalue/disredit/ignore) what they are saying"

This has not been my experience, unfortunately. No attractive man complains about feminism because any man who gives women trouble about anything ceases to be attractive to women. "Why aren't men more open and better at "understanding" and talking about their feelings" Gee, I wonder.

the fact that gay men have higher testosterone levels (this could also be due to the fact that they have more sex than straight men) does not in any way negate the fact that they have with far more frequency than straight men neurologically feminine features as well.

for biologically based reasons men will voluntarily put up with crap (and like it, not the crap I mean, but the putting up with) from women that women, in the absence of social or economic necessity, will not take from men.

just curious where you might be getting that, you should be too, actually.

Who wants a relationship with someone who has so little interest in fucking you that the desire to do so disappears whenever every detail of domestic life is not happily arranged exactly to their specifications. Men and women have to like each other enough that they both can accept the fact that they are not the same and like it. It seems to me that men are much further along in this than women.

Our brains may decided it, but we do not control the decision making process. Or are you a fundie who thinks being gay is a choice. If I could choose to be gay and have all the sex I want with people I am attracted to I would.

of course not every assertion that there is a biological basis for something is true and mistakes, honest and otherwise, can be and often are made. It is also true that whenever anyone cites specifics of a controversy they pick and choose the specifics they cite so as to make their own case sound better and their opponents sound worse.

Nevertheless, the argument that nothing can be known objectively/scientifically about biologically based gender and sexual inclinations and therefore we must uncritically accept someones ideologically and politically convenient description of "reality" is crap, no matter how it is phrased.

Trying to shut people up without dealing with what they are saying by discrediting the speaker is a gender neutral activity.

Nobody can really claim this because if it were literally true then no phenomenon which occurs over a time scale longer than the life of an experiment or which could not physically be fit inside a lab could the approached scientifically AT ALL. The question is whether or not anything significant and relevant to the question can be investigated scientifically and as you say this question is often the subject of debate.

This is probably mainly because men just don't have the same social interest in other men that women have in other women. This is probably due to the fact that female friends/family can DIRECTLY contribute to a woman's reproductive success in a way that male friends generally don't to a man and social instincts have evolved accordingly (yes culture plays a role too). Besides that, the fact that no woman is in earshot at the moment something is said doesn't mean it couldn't be known about it and reflect badly on the guy.