Hello, /lgbt/. It's me, Data-Anon. Quite a while ago i

1.) Male.

2.) Homo.

3.) 1 older brother.
3.1) Nope.

4.) None.

5.) INTJ-A

>>6810079
1. Male
2. Bi
3. None
4. None
5. INTP-A

1) Male
2) Gay
3) No siblings from my mother
4) One, older
5) ISFJ-T

1) Male
2) Straight-leaning bisexual
3) 1 younger, 2 older
->3.1) All straight to the best o my knowledge
4) 0
5) INFP-A

>Male
>Gay
>1 straight brother
>0 other brothers

Don't know anything about myers-briggs

>>6810487
Ah, my apologies. I forgot to link the test:
https://www.16personalities.com/free-personality-test

MtF
Gay
0
No
0

>>6810079
1. Male
2. Bisexual
3. 1 Older Brother
4. No
4. 0
5. INTP-T

1. Male

2. Gay

3. 3 (1 older, 2 younger)
3.1 Youngest brother bi

4. 0

5. INFJ - T

>>6810079

>mtf
>bi
>0
>0
>INFP-A

>>6810079
>(For example: Straight MtF = Originally Gay Male.)
Nah, I see what you're doing.

You want to "gather data", which can fuel your already established opinion.

Fuck off back to /pol/.

>>6810079
>5.) If you haven't participated in my original personality survey, add your Briggs Myers' type, including the Assertive or Turbulent attribute.
And this... Those types are completely worthless, they're completely dependent on your current situation, it tells nothing about your personality or how you function as a person.

Lets say there's a actual extroverted refugee
>Will answer introverted on all questions, because he/she is not used to the cultural differences
The results you'll get is that he/she is introverted... But in reality, he/she is extroverted.

>>6810837
>>6810847
Get that stick out of your butt.

Wanna know why it's important to know sexual orientation in relation to your biological sex?
Because there are studies about the relation between ones sexual orientation and the number of biological brothers you have.
Fraternal Birth Order Effect. Look it up.
It's not proven, but there is some evidence to suggest that at least parts of how male homosexuality works are determined in utero.

There is no ''''already established opinion'''' to fuel. Science, even the shitty non-serious just-for-fun kind done here, doesn't care about feelings or opinions.

I need to know whether you were born male or female and whether you are gay, bi or straight.
If you were born male, are attracted to males and then transition, you will most likely call yourself straight. But that is not the data I need. I need to know the pure biological version. The version were you were born male and are now attracted to males.

With that knowledge, I can see how many biological male homosexuals have older brothers, possibly reinforcing or refuting this theory.
It's all just for fun, because my definition of fun is data gathering, looking at that data and getting information from that data.
Something you would have realised if you had read my previous ''survey''.
> completely dependent on your current situation
Yes, Nobody says anything against that. But guess what? Even if it's situational, a trend is a trend.
The whole test is merely a fun little mind-game.

>a actual extroverted refugee
Oh, bugger off. I'm not walking through Calais, asking for migrant life stories. I'm asking a taiwanese, japanese-owned, western orientated anime-trash-image-board.

There is enough overlap between the people who visit one board to be acceptable in this loosely scientific context.

>>6810899
>But that is not the data I need.
Because it doesn't fuel your already established opinion.
The actual data you'd need is if the person is gynephilic, or androphilic, or both. Not homo/straight, that part you just put in because you're not good at hiding your agenda.

>If you were born male, are attracted to males and then transition, you will most likely call yourself straight.
So, I should put neither hetero/homo? If I didn't transition, I wouldn't be seeking relationships, so that means I'd be asexual?
That's some good data right there, we'll have to guess how we would navigate through it, not actually tell you what our orientation is.

>It's all just for fun, because my definition of fun is data gathering, looking at that data and getting information from that data.
Except that's not what you're doing. You're gathering the data you want, so you can look at your biased data, and fuel your biased opinion.

MBTI has no scientific value.

>>6810899
>There is no ''''already established opinion'''' to fuel. Science, even the shitty non-serious just-for-fun kind done here, doesn't care about feelings or opinions.
You aren't doing science, you're just doing something you think is fun.

If you're gonna do what you think is fun, then you should keep yourself civil, not be an aspie that spouts his retarded bigotry.
Like you know, if you're gonna play in a sandbox, don't throw sand in other peoples eyes. You can play in the sandbox, but be nice to the other kids.

>>6810079
>Straight MtF = Originally Gay Male
i have never been a gay male though
this is wrong and you and your survey are retarded

>>6810079
1.) Male* (Not trans but use female hormones/AA for weird vanity reasons like lots of femgen does so make of that what you will)

2.) Gay-bi (Kinsey 4-5)

3.) 1 younger brother.
3.1) Pretty sure he's straight

4.) None.

5.) INFP-T
I don't think there's any biomed data backing the birth order theory. Just a weak correlation, low birth Tfn numbers mean most gays have no older brothers so clearly there's no causation. Nothing any respectable journal would claim is anyhow.

>>6810899
>Fraternal Birth Order Effect
seriously though it's a weak correlation and most boys have no older brothers in developed countries, gays included. So no apparent causation.

The immunological explanation of many brothers makes no sense and would've easily been proven with markers by now if it were true.

There's a good reason you never see cell and nature touch this nonsense.

>>6810910
>>6810951
>Because it doesn't fuel your already established opinion.
What is my established opinion then?
I wanna eradicate all trans people and kill all jews, obviously.

Take a step back for just a second, be completely objective and realise this:

I'm not asking for feelings, for thoughts or anything like that, because that is not relevant to the theory I'm trying to work with here.
The only data I really need is this:
Were you born male?
Are you now attracted to males?
Do you have older brothers born by the same mother as you were?

> gynephilic, or androphilic
Or maybe I just use terms that have been established colloquially to make it easier to understand.

I did not ask you to redefine your whole damn identity. I asked, quote:
> If you are trans, please write the term that would be used if you were not trans, too.
>too.

Why did I phrase it like that? To make it easier to sort that information later.
That was an issue I ran into last time. Some MtF say that they are straight when they are attracted to women, some say that that's gay.
If I ask you to write down what you are attracted to in relation to the sex you were born as, it eliminates any unclarities.

Remember that it is not important what you are now.
The important part is A.) whether you are attracted to males or females and B.) whether you were born male or female.

>not be an aspie that spouts his retarded bigotry.
>not good at hiding your agenda.
> fuel your biased opinion.
Based on how I phrased a question you came to the conclusion that I am some kind of demonic Westboro Baptist Leader working on a Final Solution.

Made, I wrote that stuff down in one go on a whim because I thought:
>Eh, got some free time, why not?
That the results will be useless aside from knick-knack factor was always obvious.

>>6811109
>If I ask you to write down what you are attracted to in relation to the sex you were born as, it eliminates any unclarities.
Why would you write down sex then? If all you want to know is if somebody is gay and how many brothers they have.

If you don't want to use androphilic, and gynephilic, you could ask for answers in "Attracted to male/females". Simple as that.
The data you are trying to collect is practically worthless, because you're gathering for a single purpose... Not to mention, a lot of your answers are "what if this happened, how would you feel", since trans people won't know what to answer on the sexuality question, they have to guess what sexuality they would have if they weren't trans (or possibly, didn't transition).

>>6810899
>>6811109
>the pure biological version
biological sex is the production of sperm or eggs

Someone who medically transitioned won't produce sperm so it isn't accurate to call them males.

Do you even know what you're doing or do you just want to practice armchair medicine and make a fool of yourself?

>>6810958
It was very brief example and hey, I probably should have just stuck with the slightly longer explanation, which is:
A.) Where you born male?
B.) Are you now attracted to males?

>>6811062
>>6811087
> Just a weak correlation
Yeah and recent studies have found no significant correlation between this stuff.
Problem is of course, as always, finding a big enoug test group and another group, just as big, that works as a control group.

Nothing of that can be achieved here, which is why I made it clear that I merely did this to kill some time and maybe find some trivial but fun correlation.

>>6811126
>The data you are trying to collect is practically worthless
Yeah I know, never claimed anything else.

>they have to guess what sexuality they would have if they weren't trans
The whole thing assumes that attraction stays the same no matter your state of transition. A flimsy way but it was the second shortest solution. Right after just excluding trans people entirely, something I didn't want to do.

>>6811130
I mean yeah, male and female are just defined by whether you produce sperm and eggs.
And maybe the whole thing about different organs, a distinct bone-structure and all that.

Biological sex is more than just your genitals.

> do you just want to practice armchair medicine
Pretty much, yeah. never claimed to have any high aspirations in making this a proper study. Read the thing I made 9 months ago. Does that sound like a serious, sincere and proper scientific paper? No. No it doesn't. It was never meant to be one or even vaguely seem like one, apologies if I didn't make that clear enough.

>make a fool of yourself?
Just occasionally.

File: eee.png (14KB, 279x319px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 279x319px

>>6810079
1.) MtF.

2.) Bi (Male preference) = Lmao doesnt change.

3.) Nil.

4.) Nada.

5.)INTP-T

>>6811176
>Right after just excluding trans people entirely, something I didn't want to do.
If you wanted to survey gay males, you should've surveyed gay males. Which means excluding trans people.

What are you gonna do about the lesbians that say they're gay? Count them into the general gay population, as if they were male?

>>6811176
>male and female are just defined by whether you produce sperm and eggs.
Yea basically the only good rule of thumb.
And if they have female secondary traits but don't make sperm?

>Straight MtF = Originally Gay Male
go fuck yourself

>>6811197
I didn't just want gay males. Primarily, I wanted everybody who was born male and also attracted to males, so gay/bisexual men and straight/bisexual MtF.

I didn't exclude women because hey, maybe there would be enough to find some kind of fun correlation. It didn't hurt to include them, so I did.
>Count them into the general gay population, as if they were male?

If someone answers:
1.) Female.
2.) Gay.
Then that person get's filed under
Female, lesbian.

Because of the nature of this shitty little survey, I have to differentiate by biological sex anyway.

>>6811221
Yes, I should have phrased that better. It simply didn't occur to me that some people will throw a shitstorm over terminology.
That's why I'm a sociopath.

Would something like:
>Please also write down which description would have fit for you if your attraction stayed the same and you did not identify as a gender distinct from the one you were born as.
be better?

That's a honest question. If you help me phrase things better, everybody will be happy.

>>681124
piss off

>>6811242
>Would something like:
>>Please also write down which description would have fit for you if your attraction stayed the same and you did not identify as a gender distinct from the one you were born as.
>be better?
No, you obtuse retard.

Either
>Your sexuality
Or
>Which gender/sex are you attracted to?

You already know their gender.

>>6811309
Calm your tits, hes wondering wheter as what sexuality they identify as has changed at all. For pre transistion and post transistion (or transacceptance) i assume.

>>6811369
No, he's just claiming that mtfs are gay males.
He wants us to answer as if we were cis, and gay. Basically asking us to make up a scenario, and us to give him our answer to if we would be gay or not.

>>6811369
>>6811381
You are actually both right. Mostly.
If I had phrased it all better, this might have been avoided, but whatever, now I know better, right?

>he's just claiming that mtfs are gay males.
Not really. To avoid exactly that, I asked orientation and sex you were born as seperately.
If we assume that there is some truth to the Fraternal Birth Order Effect, we have to include everybody who was born male and is now attracted to males, regardless of whether they are trans or not, in the same group.
The part where someone is trans or not is a seperate thing all together here.

>>6811397
A straight mtf and a gay male has nothing in common, or as much in common as a straight female and a gay male.
You're making no sense, you may as well include straight females, and see if there's a lower risk of having a non-straight female in the cases of the mother having had multiple boys before her.

1) Male
2) Gay
3) 1
3.1) No.
4) 0
5) ISTJ-A

>>6810079
1.) Male
2.) Gay
3.) 1 younger
3.1) Not to my knowledge
4.) 0
5.) INTJ-A

I can see exactly what you're doing. I did this before in my school and found the expected correlation.
It'll be interesting to see the result here, although I expect that people will be more inclined to reply if they know the correlation and are anomalies, just to prove that they are different.

OP where else are you pulling data from?

You should know that 4chans demographic in general is male and introverted dominated which can spoil your data.

>>6811540
I didn't say what for in the OP on purpose to keep at least a little bit of blind testing intact.
Although it really is quite obvious what exactly I'm doing so yeah...

>>6811552
Right now I'm only pulling here. Have not yet decided if and where I will get different data, but I'd have to compare those side by side not as one batch anyway. Because, as you said, 4chan has a pretty clear demographic with few variations.

1) Male
2) Bi
3) 1 younger
3.1) None
4) None
5) INTJ-A

>>6811589
I tried to leave it ambiguous too by not mentioning it.
Since you were asking for two variables, though, it's fairly obvious you're looking for some sort of correlation.

>>6810079
1) mtf
2) asexual
3) One younger brother
4) No adopted brothers
5) ISFP-T

1.) MtF
2.) Bi
3.) 2 older brothers, 1 younger
3.1) The oldest is also bi, the others I have no idea about.
4.) None
5.)INFP-T

1. Male

2. Gay

3. One older biological brother (Guess I have that `big brother effect`)
3.1. He is straight

4. None

5. ENTJ-T

Question 1
>Male

Question 2
>Gay

Question 3
>0

Question 4
>0

Question 5
>INTP

>>6810079
1. MtF
2. Bisexual
3. I have one younger brother from the same mother but a different father and he isn't gay
4. I have one younger brother from a different mother but the same father and he isn't gay
5. INFP-T

1.) Male
2.) Asexual
3.) 0
3.1) 0
4.) 0

>>6810079

Unblock me on steam :'3

1. Male

2. Bi-curious

3. 0

4. 0

5. INTP-T

1.) MtF
2.) Bisexual
3.) 2
3.1) No
4.) 0
5.) INFP-T

>>6810079
dude just make a survey link instead of having everyone post...

>>6810079
1. MtF
2. Bi
3. 0 (closest thing I had for a brother was my cat)
4. 0
5. INTP-T

1) born male and is male
2) gay
3) 1 older brother
4) none? i dont think they gay
5) INFP

>>6810079
1.MtF

2. Bi = Bi

3 older brother, died before I was born
3.1 who knows really, not that I'm aware of

4. 0

5. ENTP-T

File: enfp.png (103KB, 1351x753px) Image search: [Google]

103KB, 1351x753px

>>6810079
>1.) Sex. Please don't just write down 'Female' if you are Trans. Write one of these: Male, Female, MtF or FtM.
MtF
>2.) Sexual Orientation. If you are trans, please write the term that would be used if you were not trans, too. (For example: Straight MtF = Originally Gay Male.)
Bisexual.
>3.) Number of older and younger biological brothers. (Counted as males born by the same mother, not adopted brothers. Counts even if you have never met your brother or if they died after birth. Only important part is that it's the same biological mother.)
0
>3.1) Any of those gay or bisexual? If yes, which ones?
N/A
>4.) Number of older and younger adoptive brothers/brothers born by another mother.
0
>Optional:
>5.) If you haven't participated in my original personality survey, add your Briggs Myers' type, including the Assertive or Turbulent attribute.
Pic related is the most recent.

>Male
>Bi/Gay? Not sure. Socially prefer women, sexually prefer men.
>None, only child
>None
>ISFP-A

>>6810079

My answers.
1. MtF
2. Bisexual, damn it feels good to be bisexual.
3. No older brothers, two younger brothers.
3.1. Both straight.
4. No adoptive brothers.

If you're interested, I also have a gay cousin. He's unlikely to post in this thread since he speaks Spanish, so it's unlikely he has posted or will post in this thread.

C1. Male
C2. Gay
C3. No older brothers, two younger brothers.
C3.1. Too young to know for the youngest, both are probably straight.
C4. No adoptive brothers.

>>6810079
1.) Female
2.) Lesbian
3.) 1 younger sister, 1 older sister
3.1) older sister is bisexual
4.) none
5.) ISFP, Turbulent

>>6810079
1. Male
2. Bi
3. Two older brothers, same mother. As far as I know they're not gay.
4. None
5. INFP-A

1) Female
2) Bisexual
3) 2 older sisters
3.1) No
4) 0
5) ISTP-T

>>6810079
F
L
1, younger, straight "as far as [he] knows"
INTP-T

There is so many wrong things about this, Data-Anon, please stop thinking this is somewhat scientific and nothing more than harmless fun.

1. MtF
2. Originally straight-leaning bi male
3. Zero
4. Zero
5. INFP-T

1.) MtF

2.) Gay (like girls)

3.) 4

3.1) Nope.

4.) 2

5.) INFP-T

File: Personality Test.png (69KB, 991x665px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 991x665px

>>6810079

1.) MtF.

2.) Bisexual

3.) 0.
3.1) Nope.

4.) 0.

5.) ISFJ-T

1. Male
2. Ace
3. None
4. None
5. ENFP-T

1. FtM
2. Attracted to men
3.1
- Dont know
4.1
5. INTP-A

1.) Male

2.) Homosexual

3.) 3 Older brothers.

3.1) None

4.) None.

5.) ENFJ-T

1) Female
2)Bi
3) 0
3.1)no
4)0

1. Female (I think)
2.) Homo (I think)
3.) 1 older half-brother
3.1.) Probably not
4.) 0
5.) INFP-T

>>6810079
FTM
Bisexual
1 older half-brother on mother's side, presumably straight because he's married.
No younger brothers.
INFP-T.

1) Male
2) Gay
3) 1 older biological brother
3.1) Nope, either straight or - improbably - bi as far as I can tell, has only had girlfriends
4) None
5) INFP-T

>>6819896
oh and mine is a half-brother too

File: mbti.png (107KB, 1240x872px) Image search: [Google]

107KB, 1240x872px

>>6810079
1. Male
2. Bi
3. 1 younger
3.1. He's straight
4. None that I am aware of, never knew my old man.
5. INTP-T

>>6810079
1) Male
2) Gay
3) 1 half-brother, who is 15 years older than me. I should mention that I've only seen him roughly 1 month every three years and he wasn't much part of my growing up.
3.1) None

4) None

5) ESTP-A

I think it's quite interesting that there aren't any ESTP's so far. There are some really interesting/famous people who are ESTP's.

>>6819997
btw the half brother was born to another mother. read the question wrong. sorry bruh.

>>6810079
1) MtF

2) Bi (or pan/grey/ace/whatever for the lack of a better term, honestly don't know)

3) 2 younger
3.1) both too young to have showed any sort of hints about sexuality.

4) none

5) infp-a

>>6810079
>male
>unsure, but I really like guys. just put gay
>1 older biological brother
>not out but I think he's bi
>zero

INTP-T