Shock?
We talk more about gay people because there are more gay people.
“And when it rains on your parade, look up rather than down. Without the rain, there would be no rainbow.”
Gilbert K. Chesterton
Instead of looking at what causes (the bigger amount) it, they let us celebrate different colors.
AI Created: Artificial Intelligence talking about Usury.
Me: We talk more about gay people because there are more gay people.
ChatGPT (jan23):
It is true that representation and visibility of gay people has increased in recent years, leading to more conversations and discussions about the LGBTQ+ community and issues that affect them. This increased visibility can be attributed to a growing acceptance and understanding of LGBTQ+ individuals, as well as increased activism and advocacy within the community. As a result, more gay people feel comfortable sharing their experiences and stories, and more people are becoming aware of the challenges and discrimination that LGBTQ+ individuals still face. Additionally, the media also plays a role in bringing attention to the LGBTQ+ community, as well as the laws and policies that may affect them.
Me: Could it be there are more gays and that’s why it is more discussed?
ChatGPT
It is possible that there has been an increase in the number of people identifying as gay or LGBTQ+ over time. However, this is likely due to a combination of factors, including greater acceptance and understanding of diverse sexual orientations and gender identities, and greater willingness for people to identify as such. Additionally, society’s evolving understanding of what it means to be gay or LGBTQ+ and the growing acceptance of these identities may also contribute to more people identifying as such. It is also possible that with more visibility and representation, some people who may have previously felt unable to express their true selves may now feel more comfortable coming out.
It’s also worth noting that people’s sexual orientation can change over time and some people may have been more likely to identify as gay or LGBTQ+ in the past but may not have felt comfortable or safe doing so. With societal changes, they may now be more comfortable identifying as such.
Me: I think it is because our environment has now a lot of endocrine disruptors.
ChatGPT:
Endocrine disruptors are chemicals that can interfere with the normal functioning of the endocrine system, which is responsible for producing hormones in the body. These chemicals can be found in a wide range of products, including pesticides, plastics, personal care products, and even food packaging. Studies have shown that exposure to endocrine disruptors can have a range of negative health effects, including reproductive and developmental problems, and cancer.
It is possible that endocrine disruptors may play a role in the development of sexual orientation and gender identity. Some studies have suggested that exposure to endocrine disruptors during critical periods of development may affect the development of the brain and reproductive system, which could in turn affect sexual orientation and gender identity. However, it is important to note that the relationship between endocrine disruptors and sexual orientation is complex and not fully understood. More research is needed to fully understand the potential impact of endocrine disruptors on sexual orientation and gender identity.
Me: During the war in Vietnam were there ever attempts to develop a bomb to make people gay?
ChatGPT:
I’m not aware of any credible evidence that there were attempts to develop a bomb to make people gay during the war in Vietnam or any other war. The idea of a “gay bomb” is a hypothetical concept that has been discussed in popular culture, but it has no basis in reality. The military has never attempted to create a bomb to change someone’s sexual orientation. The research of this type of weapon would be ethically and morally reprehensible, and it’s not possible to change someone’s sexual orientation through military means. The concept of a “gay bomb” is likely to be a satirical or fictional idea rather than a serious proposal.
Me (Wikipedia): The “gay bomb” and “halitosis bomb” are informal names for two non-lethal psychochemical weapons that a United States Air Force research laboratory speculated about producing. The theories involve discharging sex pheromones over enemy forces in order to make them sexually attracted to each other. In 1994 the Wright Laboratory in Ohio, a predecessor to today’s United States Air Force Research Laboratory, produced a three-page proposal on a variety of possible nonlethal chemical weapons, which was later obtained by the Sunshine Project through a Freedom of Information Act request.
ChatGPT:
I apologize for the confusion in my previous response. You are correct that the “gay bomb” and “halitosis bomb” were informal names for two non-lethal psychochemical weapons that were speculated about by the United States Air Force Research Laboratory. The idea behind these weapons was to use pheromones to disrupt the enemy’s ability to fight by making them attracted to each other. However, it is important to note that these were not serious proposals and no such weapons were ever developed or used by the US Air Force. As a language model, I do not have access to recent events and my knowledge cut-off is 2021, The use of chemical or biological weapons is considered illegal under international law and such weapons are not used in contemporary warfare.
Me: I believe there is more atypical sexual behavior of which homosexuality is one. I believe the amount of chemicals that influence the sexual development exploded in the last 50 years. I believe that’s why it’s a bigger minority who wants a seat on the table deciding what is normal. Where do I make a logical fallacy?
ChatGPT:
It is possible that there has been an increase in the amount of chemicals that can disrupt the normal sexual development in the last 50 years, and that these chemicals may be contributing to a higher incidence of atypical sexual behavior. The idea that this might be the reason for an increase in the number of people identifying as gay or LGBTQ+ and seeking more representation and visibility is an argument that could be supported by scientific research.
However, it is important to note that the relationship between chemicals and sexual development is complex and not fully understood. While exposure to certain chemicals can disrupt normal sexual development, there is still much that is not known about how these chemicals interact with other factors such as genetics, hormones, and epigenetics to influence sexual orientation and gender identity. Additionally, it is important to note that sexual orientation and gender identity are complex, multi-factorial and influenced by a variety of factors, so it’s difficult to attribute any changes in the incidence of atypical sexual behavior solely to environmental factors.
As for your statement about the minority wanting a seat on the table, it is a common belief that marginalized groups should have representation and a voice in decision-making processes that affect them. This is not a logical fallacy, but it’s important to note that representation alone is not enough to address the issues and discrimination faced by marginalized groups and it’s important to consider intersectionality.
Me: What would mean: “fully understood”?
ChatGPT:
When something is “fully understood” it means that there is a complete and accurate understanding of the subject. In the context of the relationship between chemicals and sexual development, “fully understood” would mean that scientists have a comprehensive understanding of how these chemicals interact with other factors such as genetics, hormones, and epigenetics to influence sexual orientation and gender identity. This would include the specific mechanisms by which these chemicals disrupt normal sexual development, as well as a detailed understanding of how these chemicals interact with other environmental and genetic factors to influence sexual orientation and gender identity. Additionally, it would mean that there is a good understanding of how different chemicals and different levels of exposure affect the sexual development, and how this affects the sexual orientation. Such a level of understanding would allow scientists to make accurate predictions and recommendations about how to mitigate the potential effects of these chemicals on sexual development.
Me: But some chemicals do influence the sexual orientation. Right? They just don’t know how specifically.
ChatGPT:
It is true that some studies have suggested that certain chemicals can disrupt the normal development of the brain and reproductive system, which could in turn affect sexual orientation and gender identity. However, it is important to note that the relationship between chemicals and sexual development is complex and not fully understood. While some chemicals have been shown to have endocrine-disrupting effects and could potentially affect sexual development, the specific mechanisms by which these chemicals affect sexual orientation and gender identity are still not well understood.
It is also important to note that many other factors, such as genetics, hormones, epigenetics, and environment, can also influence the development of sexual orientation and gender identity. Therefore, the effects of chemicals on sexual development are likely to be influenced by interactions with these other factors.
It’s important to also note that studies that suggest a link between environmental chemicals and sexual orientation and gender identity are still in the early stages and more research is needed to fully understand the relationship and the specific mechanisms by which these chemicals may affect sexual development. Additionally, it’s important to consider other studies that have not found a link between these chemicals and sexual orientation or gender identity, and to be cautious about drawing conclusions based on limited evidence.
Me: Who would benefit with the idea that these chemicals don’t influence the sexual development?
ChatGPT:
It is difficult to say who would specifically benefit from the idea that chemicals do not influence sexual development without knowing the context and the agenda of the people who might hold this idea. However, in general, companies and industries that produce or use chemicals that have been linked to endocrine disruption and sexual development, such as the chemical industry, the plastics industry and the pesticides industry, could benefit from the idea that these chemicals do not have any significant effects on sexual development. They would be less likely to face regulations or restrictions on the use of these chemicals, which could have a significant impact on their profits and operations.
Additionally, it’s worth noting that the studies on the link between chemicals and sexual development are still in the early stages and more research is needed to fully understand the relationship. Therefore, it’s important to consider different opinions and studies, and to be cautious about drawing conclusions based on limited evidence.
Me: About how much money are we talking in these industries?
ChatGPT:
It’s difficult to estimate the total revenue of the chemical, plastics, and pesticides industries, as it varies widely by company and country. However, it is a multi-billion dollar industry globally. The global chemical industry, for example, is valued at trillions of dollars, with the largest chemical companies generating billions of dollars in revenue annually.
The global pesticides market was valued at USD 61.44 billion in 2020 and is projected to reach USD 103.75 billion by 2028, growing at a CAGR of 6.5% during the forecast period.
The global plastics market was valued at USD 568.4 billion in 2019, and it is projected to reach USD 782.4 billion by 2027, growing at a CAGR of 4.3% during the forecast period.
It is important to note that these numbers are estimates and they are subject to change due to various factors such as economic conditions, regulatory changes, and technological advancements.
Me: Telling these that they might have caused some atypical sexual behavior. How would they react?
ChatGPT:
It’s difficult to estimate the total revenue of the chemical, plastics, and pesticides industries, as it varies widely by company and country. However, it is a multi-billion dollar industry globally. The global chemical industry, for example, is valued at trillions of dollars, with the largest chemical companies generating billions of dollars in revenue annually.
The global pesticides market was valued at USD 61.44 billion in 2020 and is projected to reach USD 103.75 billion by 2028, growing at a CAGR of 6.5% during the forecast period.
The global plastics market was valued at USD 568.4 billion in 2019, and it is projected to reach USD 782.4 billion by 2027, growing at a CAGR of 4.3% during the forecast period.
It is important to note that these numbers are estimates and they are subject to change due to various factors such as economic conditions, regulatory changes, and technological advancements.
Me: Telling these that they might have caused some atypical sexual behavior. How would they react?
ChatGPT:
If studies were to provide evidence that certain chemicals produced or used by these industries were causing atypical sexual behavior, it’s likely that the industries would likely respond in a variety of ways. Some companies might take steps to reformulate their products, or to reduce their use of chemicals that have been linked to endocrine disruption and sexual development. Other companies might contest the findings of the studies and argue that their products are safe and that the research linking them to atypical sexual behavior is flawed.
Industries might also use their economic power and influence to lobby against regulations or restrictions on the use of these chemicals, and may try to discredit the studies or researchers that have found a link between these chemicals and atypical sexual behavior.
It’s worth noting that the industries have a responsibility to ensure the safety of their products, and to consider potential health risks for the general public. They are also accountable to the laws and regulations that are in place to ensure consumer safety and environmental protection.
Me: I think their first layer of defense would be a kind of total deafness. It’s funny that they don’t have studies that they don’t influence the sexual development.
ChatGPT:
It is possible that companies and industries that produce or use chemicals that have been linked to endocrine disruption and sexual development, would initially respond with denial or deafness to studies that suggest a link between these chemicals and atypical sexual behavior. They might argue that the research linking their products to atypical sexual behavior is flawed or inconclusive and that their products are safe. They might also contest the findings of the studies and argue that the studies have not been conducted with the appropriate methods and that their products comply with current regulations.
It’s worth noting that in some cases, these industries have been criticized for not conducting enough research on the safety of their products and for not being transparent about the potential health risks of their products. It’s also important to consider that some studies may not be financed by these industries, so they may not have a vested interest in the outcome, and they may have a more objective approach to the research.
It’s important to keep in mind that research on the link between these chemicals and atypical sexual behavior is still ongoing, and more studies are needed to understand the relationship and the specific mechanisms by which these chemicals may affect sexual development. Additionally, it’s important to consider different opinions and studies, and to be cautious about drawing conclusions based on limited evidence.
Me: If a limited research gives already limited evidence. One could wonder what the needed research is gonna show as evidence.
ChatGPT:
It is true that limited research can provide only limited evidence on the relationship between chemicals and atypical sexual behavior. However, it is important to keep in mind that research is an ongoing process, and new studies are constantly being conducted to better understand the relationship between chemicals and sexual development. The limited evidence that is currently available provides a starting point for further research and allows scientists to identify areas that need further study.
It is important to note that the studies on the link between environmental chemicals and sexual orientation and gender identity are still in the early stages and more research is needed to fully understand the relationship and the specific mechanisms by which these chemicals may affect sexual development. Additionally, it’s important to consider other studies that have not found a link between these chemicals and sexual orientation or gender identity, and to be cautious about drawing conclusions based on limited evidence.
It’s also worth noting that research on the safety of chemicals and products is an ongoing process, and new studies are constantly being conducted to better understand the potential health risks and benefits of these chemicals. The limited evidence that is currently available provides a starting point for further research and allows scientists and regulators to make informed decisions about the safety of these chemicals.
Buy the AI a drink (in holofuel)
Extra:
Other potential disruptors of sexual development include certain chemicals such as phthalates, bisphenols, parabens, and pesticides, as well as synthetic hormones such as diethylstilbestrol (DES) and the synthetic version of estrogen found in some oral contraceptives. Additionally, radiation, drugs, and certain infectious agents can also disrupt the normal sexual development of a fetus.
Wikipedia:
Affiliate:
Books:
- “Our Bodies, Ourselves” by Boston Women’s Health Book Collective
- “The Endocrine System: Hormones in the Body” by Paula Johanson
- “The Velvet Rage: Overcoming the Pain of Growing Up Gay in a Straight Man’s World” by Alan Downs
Documentaries:
- “Before Stonewall” (1984)
- “Paris is Burning” (1990)
- “The Celluloid Closet” (1995)
- “How to Survive a Plague” (2012)
- “The Death and Life of Marsha P. Johnson” (2017)
Movies:
- “Brokeback Mountain” (2005)
- “Moonlight” (2016)
- “Call Me by Your Name” (2017)
- “The Miseducation of Cameron Post” (2018)
- “Portrait of a Lady on Fire” (2019)
TV Series:
- “Queer as Folk” (2000-2005)
- “The L Word” (2004-2009)
- “Pose” (2018-2021)
- “Special” (2019-2021)
- “It’s a Sin” (2021)
Songs:
- “Born This Way” by Lady Gaga
- “Express Yourself” by Madonna
- “I Want to Break Free” by Queen
- “Same Love” by Macklemore & Ryan Lewis ft. Mary Lambert
- “I’m Coming Out” by Diana Ross
Artworks:
- “Untitled (Portrait of Ross in L.A.)” by Felix Gonzalez-Torres
- “The AIDS Memorial Quilt” by various artists
- “Self-Portrait/Pervert” by Catherine Opie
- “David Wojnarowicz: History Keeps Me Awake at Night” exhibition at the Whitney Museum of American Art (2018)
Podcasts:
- “Nancy” by WNYC Studios
- “Queer as Fact” by Not Sorry Productions
- “Food 4 Thot” by Independent
- “The Sewers of Paris” by independent
- “Making Gay History” by Eric Marcus
Purpose: to fund this project
Would you agree…
#Usury #UsuryC #UC040 #UC041 #UC042
Usury 
Leave a comment