Random Discussion

Why boys are turning into girls
kyupol at 10:10PM, Nov. 5, 2009
(offline)
posts: 3,713
joined: 1-12-2006
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthcomment/geoffrey-lean/6418553/Why-boys-are-turning-into-girls.html

Who benefits from this? Ask yourself.
NOW UPDATING!!!
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:26PM
Orin J Master at 10:49PM, Nov. 5, 2009
(online)
posts: 437
joined: 12-16-2007
noone. people are dumb as S't when it comes to anything more complex than a radio, and asking them to actually consider what could happen with the chemicals would have taken too long

really? the “who profits” line? that's what you're going to lead off with? anyone that shares a random report and just asks that old chestnut should go sit in the lake for a few hours as punishment. lazy and pompus……
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:22PM
ozoneocean at 12:16AM, Nov. 6, 2009
(online)
posts: 25,065
joined: 1-2-2004
kyupol
Who benefits from this?
The reptiles and the illuminati!

Amiright? ^^



—————–
Naaah, the conclusions are flawed. They say that old statistics suggest that it should be 106 boys to 100 girls because that's “nature's way” of coping for the fact that more males will die in accidents , war, and hunting etc.
But now that number is shifting and they blame the chemicals.

Morons. Cretins. Whitlings.

The imbeciles are using the older number as their control norm. Why? Why should it always be set in stone that there will be more men than women? Their statistics do not go back far enough to be that reliable, therefore any conclusions they make from them are as likely to be true as any that could be invented by anyone else. -_-


On the subject of percentages of men to women in birth numbers I've heard of far more reputable studies that were a lot more interesting and in-depth than this forgettable article. One very interesting conclusion was that when times were hard, with a low food supply, it was more likely that women would give birth to one sex rather than the other-(I think it was men in that case), but when times were good, not much strife and food was plentiful, then the other sex was predominant (female babies I think). The reasoning was based on evolutionary theories, genetic studies, diet, history etc.
Not just a few random sensuses, received wisdom, and the good old miscellaneous “bad chemicals” ;)
 
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:35PM
Warpedwenger at 8:18AM, Nov. 6, 2009
(online)
posts: 1,760
joined: 4-3-2007
It would probably be a good thing if alot of the world's collective sperm counts were to drop.
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:47PM
Ochitsukanai at 11:55AM, Nov. 6, 2009
(online)
posts: 979
joined: 6-11-2008
Gender-influencing chemicals, eh? Well, if it means prettier men, I'm all for it. Clearly the one who benefits is me! AHAHAHA. -enthusiastic thumbs-up-

(I just can't take that seriously)

Always, I wanna be with mew, and make believe with mew
and live in harmony harmony oh nyan
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:20PM
BffSatan at 9:00PM, Nov. 6, 2009
(online)
posts: 1,478
joined: 3-2-2008
Logically if this is making dicks smaller it should make boobs bigger.
I am not complaining about it.
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:21AM
SansTalent at 3:16PM, Nov. 9, 2009
(offline)
posts: 225
joined: 10-8-2009
I am with ozonocean in spirit, except it is the other way around. The chances for a woman to spontaneously have an abortion are slightly higher when the fetus is a boy. Of course these chances go up in times when she is stressed out, as would be when the times are hard. This is because, once it has been aborted, she can get pregnant again next month, as oppossed to the 9 months it would take to carry to term a boy that's probably going to die before he can have his own children anyways. Of course the difference is slim, and it must be a real crisis for it to really matter, but over the generations, yeah, there are more ladies than guys in the world. And the chances are never in favor of males. Not for humans anyways (I assume species where the females do the fighting, like lions, would have a more equal ratio).

Edit: Lions are a bad example, they are mammals. It is the carrying of the fetuses that weighs the balance, not the fighting. For a higher male to female ratio, it must be a species that lays eggs. Some insects DO have more males than females, since each can lay a couple thousand eggs and forget about them.
He who flames trolls should see to it that he himself does not become a troll. For when you gaze long into the internets, the internets gaze also into you.

Look, a comic! Sorta!
last edited on July 14, 2011 3:22PM
lba at 4:29PM, Nov. 9, 2009
(online)
posts: 2,686
joined: 5-29-2007
And here I thought this might actually be a posting leading to a discussion of the role reversals we've been seeing in the past few years, like how it used to be predominantly males who were free to pick and drop partners at will, cheat and/or carry on multiple dating relationships, and how in more recent times, women are becoming the ones more apt to drop partners at will and/or cheat. Instead it's more kyurazy posting.

Of course, I guess that could be related to the numbers thing, but I would think that it would be reversed in that case and the smaller numbered sex would be the one's more apt to drop and pick up relationships quicker. So I suppose they're maybe only linked in ways other than cause effect.

I might also add that being overweight tends to increase estrogen and progesterone levels in the human body. That's why women who have a bit higher BMI ( up to a point obviously. ) tend to have more curves and wider hips in relation to their waist. Those people with higher levels of hormones also tend to have children who share a lot of their traits. And don't you suppose that the same nations eating excessive amounts might be the ones who can afford processed foods that have chemicals present? Not that I'm in anyway saying that guys are developing smaller dicks just because of being overweight, ( although having an extra inch of fat around your member does effectively do that. ) but it's not just chemicals influencing things like that.
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:29PM
Evil_Hare at 5:22PM, Nov. 25, 2009
(online)
posts: 183
joined: 9-28-2009
Makes me glad I was born before all this crap.
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:24PM
SansTalent at 5:45PM, Nov. 25, 2009
(offline)
posts: 225
joined: 10-8-2009
Again, sciencey correction (hey science rocks! and stuff). The stacking-and-rocking of partners hasn't to do with the male to female ratio, it's about the gestation times (again). A guy can have a child and move on to the next one. A girl has to wait a little more. That's also why they can, should and usually are a little more picky, why guys fight other guys for the girls, guys prefer quantity and girls quality, and all of those.
Now, the reversal of the tendency is not a chemical thing, that's just social. First off, no one wants equality, you want superiority. I do too. But we settle for equality on the hopes that everybody else will too, since that's better than being fighting all the time. Now, those who perceive their situation to be unfair also implicitly perceive themselves to be somewhat inferior to the others, even if they should refuse to admit it. And the best way to offset that inferiority? Get what the superior group has! Ergo the effect you observed (and indeed many others).
He who flames trolls should see to it that he himself does not become a troll. For when you gaze long into the internets, the internets gaze also into you.

Look, a comic! Sorta!
last edited on July 14, 2011 3:22PM

Forgot Password
©2011 WOWIO, Inc. All Rights Reserved