Low Uterine Testosterone Levels Determine Homosexual Behavior in Males

mk23666

Rising Star
BGOL Investor
Low Uterine Testosterone Levels Determine Homosexual Behavior in Males - Finding based on experiments made on orientation ability
By: Stefan Anitei, Science Editor


What's inside a woman's head is very different from what's inside a man's head.

Researchers know that the way neurons fire inside the brain differs related to sex, and this determines differences in how a woman's and a man's brains function.

Now a research team has found that the way a brain functions, whether womanish or mannish, depends on the womb exposure to sex hormones, a discovery that could explain differences in neuropsychological disorders in men and women, like attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, Alzheimer's disease and autism, and also a cause for homosexuality.

The researchers at the Yerkes National Primate Research Center have used a behavioral trait typical to all female primates, including women: they tend to use landmarks for navigation. "Men, when finding a location, generally use north and south as well as distance estimates whereas women prefer physical cues such as street names, signs and buildings," said lead researcher Dr. Rebecca Herman. "The very fact females and males use different strategies suggests there are subtle sex differences in the way the brain develops."

This is not just a difference in how females and males cope with spatial problems; the difference also stands in which cues they employ in solving problems.

The team compared normal female and male rhesus macaques exposed to different prenatal testosterone levels to see if sex differences were due to "in utero" differences in hormone exposure. A group of females and males received a chemical blocking the testosterone activity while another mixed group received increased testosterone. "There are a number of developmental disorders associated with abnormal levels of hormones. Through a better understanding of how the human brain develops and functions differently in women and men, researchers may be able to develop better treatments for these disorders," said Herman.

The team investigated the individuals when they reached maturity, focusing on how the monkeys navigated into an open area to detect highly valued food items in goal boxes.

The investigators changed the food locations (spatial information) and the number of colored markers (landmarks) on baited goal boxes so they could check the monkeys' memory and use of visual markers. "When both spatial and marker cues were available, performance did not differ by sex or prenatal treatment," said Herman. "When salient landmarks directly indicate correct locations but spatial information is unreliable, females perform better than males," she continued.

"Male subjects whose testosterone exposure had been blocked early in gestation were more able to use the landmarks to navigate than were control males. They performed more like females. This suggests that prenatal testosterone likely plays a role in establishing the sex difference in using landmarks for navigation," said Herman.
 
So they did all this research for what....to determine if someone is "born" homosexual.:smh: I wonder how many of the worlds people could have been helped with the obscene amount of $$$ probably spent on this "research" :smh:
 
I agree with LS ... people need to get over this whole "why are they gay" thing ... just do you man ... if you aint gay then don't worry about why they are ... FUCK ... that money could have been used towards feeding the hungry:smh:
 
So they did all this research for what....to determine if someone is "born" homosexual.:smh: I wonder how many of the worlds people could have been helped with the obscene amount of $$$ probably spent on this "research" :smh:

Not so fast babe. What I'm getting from this is anyone can produce a gay or lesbian child. (Yes even you) If uterine testosterone levels really are the bottom line to what influences a person to produce a gay or lesbian child. This brings up possibilities, in the future uterine testosterone levels can be monitored and possibly adjusted to correct any imbalances found.
 
Not so fast babe. What I'm getting from this is anyone can produce a gay or lesbian child. (Yes even you) If uterine testosterone levels really are the bottom line to what influences a person to produce a gay or lesbian child. This brings up possibilities, in the future uterine testosterone levels can be monitored and possibly adjusted to correct any imbalances found.

I wonder if there may be implications with more and more women using infertility drugs that there could be an un-foreseen side effect?:confused:
 
I wonder if there may be implications with more and more women using infertility drugs that there could be an un-foreseen side effect?:confused:

With women its hard to say. After reading some of what Lady Scorpio and Bigirl have said about how some meds have affected them, its very possible.
 
If so, there could be larger implications with the use of certain plastics used in food/liquid packaging and preparation that carry compounds which mimic estrogens/testosterones as well.
 
Gay men molest boys at a higher rate than straight men molest little girls. Men who engage in homosexual behavior were usually molested and/or outcasts.

Not saying it makes sense but there is a trend. I don't buy the whole "they're born that way" nonsense.

Though imagine if they did decide they're really born that way and found some sort of gene they believe is the culprit. All the pro abortion leftist gays and lesbians will suddenly be on the picket lines protesting all the gay baby abortions, that's for sure.
 
Not so fast babe. What I'm getting from this is anyone can produce a gay or lesbian child. (Yes even you) If uterine testosterone levels really are the bottom line to what influences a person to produce a gay or lesbian child. This brings up possibilities, in the future uterine testosterone levels can be monitored and possibly adjusted to correct any imbalances found.
That's it EXACTLY...

If so, there could be larger implications with the use of certain plastics used in food/liquid packaging and preparation that carry compounds which mimic estrogens/testosterones as well.
The larger implication is the possibility of a parent DECIDING whether they wanted a gay child :eek: With the persecution gays face, what parent would choose that? Consequently, does the gay population...generally considered to be 10% of the population throughout history...give or take, eventually disappear?
Gay men molest boys at a higher rate than straight men molest little girls. Men who engage in homosexual behavior were usually molested and/or outcasts.

Not saying it makes sense but there is a trend. I don't buy the whole "they're born that way" nonsense.

Though imagine if they did decide they're really born that way and found some sort of gene they believe is the culprit. All the pro abortion leftist gays and lesbians will suddenly be on the picket lines protesting all the gay baby abortions, that's for sure.

Its not a gene, it's a lack of testosterone in the womb. Your point is valid, but if they can monitor it & adjust the levels artificially, they can determine the sexuality. Hence, no need for gay abortions.
This whole research raises some ethical questions.
 
The larger implications I spoke of regarded the possibility that chemicals in plastics could also be what is producing the effects the scientist are reporting as a cause for homosexuality. Like most discoveries, the knowledge can be used for good or bad.

I'm neutral on the info/subject myself.
 
If plastics had any effect on homosexuality :hmm:..I don't know either way...BUT, we've been using plastics for just around 60 years. Gays have been around forever. You would expect there to be a spike in the gay population, sometime after the second world war, if that were the case. I haven't seen or heard any research to support that. But I also haven't been sitting up late at night thinking about it either.:lol:
 
Are Plastic Baby Bottles Harmful?
Friday, Feb. 08, 2008 By LAURA BLUE

If a new report is to be believed, an entire generation of children has grown up drinking a toxic chemical from their earliest months: bisphenol A. A consortium of North American environmental and health groups released a paper Thursday showing that many major-brand baby bottles leach bisphenol A, and is now calling for a moratorium on the use of the compound — used to make polycarbonate plastic — in food and beverage containers.

Researchers tested 19 baby bottles purchased in nine U.S. states and Canada. Bottle brands included Avent, Dr. Brown, Evenflo, Disney, Gerber and Playtex. When the bottles were heated to 175 degrees F (80 degrees C), every one of them leached bisphenol A at about 5 to 7 parts per billion. The report also suggested that because of the chemical makeup of bisphenol A, it may leach more in fatty or acidic liquids, such as milk or apple juice, than in water.

It's a parent's nightmare. But before you panic, consider this: U.S. and E.U. health and environment authorities still stand behind polycarbonate plastic, putting the safe level of daily bisphenol A exposure at more than 25 times the levels found in baby bottles. (The Canadian agency, Health Canada, is currently reviewing its bisphenol A policy; conclusions are due in May.)

So who's right? Opponents of bisphenol A say official safety figures are far too high, given what the chemical, which mimics the hormone estrogen in the body, does in animals. In the lab, even low exposure levels — adjusted for body weight — have been linked to a variety of sex-hormone-imbalance effects, including breast and prostate cancer, early puberty, miscarriage, low sperm count, and immune-system changes. Critics also claim that in developing infants, such sex-hormone effects may come into play at exposure levels far below what health authorities have deemed safe for adults. "The reproductive system is developing, the brain is developing, the immune system is developing," David Carpenter, director of the Institute for Health and the Environment at the University at Albany, told a news conference Thursday on behalf of the environmental agencies. Knowing that, he said, it is "absolutely obscene" to expose infants to the compound. Legislation has been proposed in several U.S. states to limit or ban the use bisphenol A. And a handful of stores, including Whole Foods and Patagonia, have yanked polycarbonate bottles from their shelves.

Still, the scientific establishment disagrees. In a 2006 summary explaining its review of bisphenol A safety, the European Food Safety Authority argued that animal trials of the chemical simply don't tell us very much about humans. For one thing, when humans ingest the compound, it's quickly excreted through the urine; when rats and mice eat it, it's released into the bloodstream and remains in the body much longer — with much more time to throw off the body's sex-hormone balance, causing nasty effects.

So far, the human data on bisphenol A have been "really inconclusive," says Antonia Calafat, a research chemist at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, citing a lack of big quality studies testing the chemical's effects in humans. In order to prove definitively that bisphenol A is not harmful to people, researchers would need to conduct large, lengthy trials, such as those that finally concluded that thimerosal-containing vaccines do not cause autism in children. That would require rounding up a control group of participants with very little exposure to bisphenol A — no small feat. Calafat's recent findings showed that, among roughly 2,500 Americans tested in 2003 and 2004, more than 95% already had traces of bisphenol A in their urine. Alternatively, researchers could test how higher-than-average doses of bisphenol A affects people. Again, a likely dead end. "As a scientist it would be pretty much unethical to do that study knowing what [bisphenol A] does in animal studies," says Laura Vandenberg, a post-doc fellow at Harvard Medical School who researches bisphenol A, and is a critic of its use.

The obvious solution may seem to be, when in doubt, ban it. If there's a chance that bisphenol A hurts kids, then why run the risk? Certainly, parents have little interest in waiting for scientific evidence when they think their children's health is in danger. Hence, the many state legislators who want to limit bisphenol A's use now. But without evidence, anything could be considered potentially harmful. Right now, U.S. and E.U. health and environment authorities still believe the best evidence supports continued use of regular polycarbonate baby bottles.

Polycarbonate plastic is used for a reason: It's useful. Hard, shatterproof, lightweight and clear, it's in a huge range of products from water bottles and food storage containers, to lenses in eyeglasses and car headlights, CDs and DVDs, and even bulletproof glass. "Whether you realize it or not, you use it in your life every day," says Steven Hentges, head of the polycarbonate group at the industry lobby organization American Chemistry Council. There are, of course, alternatives to polycarbonates, like glass and other plastics. And for the growing number of consumers opposed to bisphenol A, there's no shortage of online resources to help find them.
 
Are common Chemicals scrambling your hormones?


Ingredients in shampoos, dyes and detergents may be mixing up your hormonal signals. No one knows for sure, but the EPA is stepping up research.

By Brenda Biondo

Dozens of synthetic chemical found in our food, environment and everyday products have proven harmful to wildlife and lab animals. Now there’s a new focus on whether they’re putting people at risk, too, by playing havoc with hormones that control reproduction and development.

"Hormone disruption has emerged as one of our top research priorities over the past couple of years," says Lawrence Reiter at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. After reviewing nearly 300 studies, the EPA concluded in 1997 that hormone-disrupting chemicals "can lead to disturbing health effects in animals, including cancer, sterility and developmental problems."

The agency said the jury is still out on whether these chemicals—many originating in pesticides, plastics and industrial pollutants—are causing similar problems in humans. But it called for stepped-up research because of potential risks, especially for children.

THE RISK FOR BOTH SEXES

The stakes are high because hormones play such a crucial role in body functions. Produced by the endocrine glands, hormones act as chemical messengers that tell cells in organs and tissues what to do. Hormones like estrogen and testosterone, for example, help determine how sex organs develop and function.

Scientists want to know if man-made chemicals that can interfere with the hormone system are responsible for the plummeting sperm counts in men in many parts of the world and for other problems such as the dramatic increase in a defect of the penis in U.S. newborns.

Also of concern: whether girls are reaching puberty unnaturally early. A recent study of 17,000 U.S. girls showed that 48 percent of black girls and 15 percent of white girls showed signs of puberty by age 8. Doctors offer several explanations, some benign. One is that "normal" development ages may be based on flawed data, or that better nutrition in recent decades has had an impact. But some researchers worry that ingredients in some shampoos, dyes and detergents are absorbed through the skin and then scramble hormonal signals.

INDUSTRY CAN’T IGNORE IT

A number of people believe there’s already ample evidence to indict several chemicals. "At what point do you say there are enough red flags?" asks University of Missouri biology professor Frederick Vom Saal, one of several experts working with the National Academy of Sciences on the issue. Vom Saal says his research shows a chemical in the lining of cans that leach into food in amounts capable of disrupting hormones in humans.

The chemical industry sees things differently. Hormone disruption "is a plausible hypothesis; you can’t walk away and ignore it," says Jon Holtzman of the Chemical Manufacturers Association. But so far, he says, "the replicated, peer-reviewed research has not turned up significant problems." His group is spending $4 million in the next two years to research the issue.

As the debate continues, some consumers choose to play it safe. Jerry Peters, a lawyer from San Rafael, Calif., heard from news reports and friends that some plastic containers might leach chemicals. He now uses glass, not plastic, when microwaving, and avoids water bottled in plastic. He says: "I can’t think of why not to [take precautions], given the potential risks."

WAYS TO PLAY IT SAFE

People concerned about exposure to suspected hormone disruptors can take a number of steps, say advocacy groups.

Among their suggestions:

CHANGE YOUR DIET

Limit your intake of meat and dairy products, or switch to leaner or lower-fat versions. This reduces your exposure to industrial pollutants, such as DIOXIN, that concentrate in the fat of animals.

BUY ORGANIC FOOD

Avoid pesticide residues

AVOID VINYL

Don’t give children pacifiers or teething rings made from vinyl

GO NATURAL WITH BUGS

Use herbal or scent-based, not pesticide-based, insect repellents

READ SHAMPOO LABELS

Choose hair-care products without "octoxynol" or "nonoxynol" among their ingredients

AVOID POLYSTYRENE FOAM

Don’t use plastic foam containers for fatty foods, alcohol, or hot foods or beverages

FOR MORE INFORMATION

The EPA’s Web site on hormone disruptors is www.epa.gov/endocrine
(a new window will open, close to return)

USA WEEKEND – Feb. 13-18, 1998
 
Its not a gene, it's a lack of testosterone in the womb. Your point is valid, but if they can monitor it & adjust the levels artificially, they can determine the sexuality. Hence, no need for gay abortions.
This whole research raises some ethical questions.

Oh I know I was just sharing a thought.

Anyway I don't believe you can pinpoint it with all the othe factors. Until you can really say "lack of testosterone in the womb did this" it's not worth it to mess with the baby in utero. There are hormones in everything and kids are getting shot up with all sorts of shit before they're 5 these days.

Whether they can prove it or not doesn't even matter. There is enough evidence to suggest that you should eat organic whenever you can and stop eating man made garbage. If you want meat, find a butcher who gets grassfed animal meat.
 
Oh I know I was just sharing a thought.

Anyway I don't believe you can pinpoint it with all the othe factors. Until you can really say "lack of testosterone in the womb did this" it's not worth it to mess with the baby in utero. There are hormones in everything and kids are getting shot up with all sorts of shit before they're 5 these days.

Whether they can prove it or not doesn't even matter. There is enough evidence to suggest that you should eat organic whenever you can and stop eating man made garbage. If you want meat, find a butcher who gets grassfed animal meat.

Actually it COULD be a gene too.

"New research has found that due to mutations in the gene coding for the androgen receptor individuals were insensitive to androgens, remaining immune to the effect of testosterone."

There could be a need for the combinative effect of both, or even more, factors to make one gay tho.

http://news.softpedia.com/news/Testosterone-Insensitivity-Turns-Men-Into-Women-68845.shtml
 
Homosexuality has nothing to do with femininity. There are as many super-masculine gay men as "effeminate" ones (if not more). Plenty of straight men are effeminate as well.
 
Gay men molest boys at a higher rate than straight men molest little girls.

That's ridiculous.

Not saying it makes sense but there is a trend. I don't buy the whole "they're born that way" nonsense.

Doesn't matter what you "buy" or not. It's none of your concern why someone is oriented one way or the other, whether genetically, sociologically or by choice.

Blacks used to be analyzed in the same way, with their "inferior" genetic structure scrutinized ad infinitum. You'd think some folks would learn. :smh:

Though imagine if they did decide they're really born that way and found some sort of gene they believe is the culprit.

They should be more concerned with "criminal" genes.

All the pro abortion leftist gays and lesbians will suddenly be on the picket lines protesting all the gay baby abortions, that's for sure.

Typical wacko Right-Wing fantasy.
 
lol, if this research is on point, they're implying that homosexuality is a disability.

don't think the homos will like that, they will keep funding the "gay gene" research.

personally, i don't care bout gay ppl. do you. i just don't want to see it.
 
First off, the thread title is grossly and shamelessly misleading.

Secondly, I'm not exactly sold on the efficacy of using "navigation" as the behavioural trait to guage sexuality.

Even though ailments such as Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia, caused by a steroid enzyme deficiency, are know to be responsible for so-called "tomboy" traits in females, a majority of females with this still end up having a feminine gender identity.

So it's not all about hormones.

Scientifically, our sex is a function of how our psychological and psychological identities align.

The sexual differentiation of the brain (SDN-POA, INAH-3, blah, blah, blah) has been found to control certain behaviours associated with sexual identity.
Now since this differentiation (nature) proceeds throughout the course of development of the brain and nervous system, I would dare suggest that when this is combined with social conditioning (nurture)
a resulting synergy (or even antagonism) would determine the blueprint of ones sexual identiy.

The good old nature-nurture complex.


 
lol, if this research is on point, they're implying that homosexuality is a disability.

... don't think the homos will like that, ...

Should they? Should anyone, especially since we already know it isn't true?

personally, i don't care bout gay ppl. do you. i just don't want to see it.

If you "don't want to see it" that means YOU DO CARE. :smh:
 
So they did all this research for what....to determine if someone is "born" homosexual.:smh: I wonder how many of the worlds people could have been helped with the obscene amount of $$$ probably spent on this "research" :smh:
They've done worse.











Like researching ways to turn fruit flies gay. :smh::smh::smh:
 
Back
Top