Homosexuality in cattle: Related to hormonal imbalance?

I read an article in a science magazine a couple of years ago, and it stated that a cattle ranch had problems breeding due to homosexuality, thus greatly reducing their cattle. A group of scientists reportedly examined the problem and found there was some kind of hormonal imbalance within the cattle that caused this behaviour. The homosexuality was then "cured" by injecting more \ or reducing the hormones that was secreted through their hypothalamus in their brain, the cattle then went back to heterosexuality.

I must say that it's been a couple of years since I read this article, and I haven't been able to find it again, so the information given might not be entirely consistent with what was factually written. But it should give you the gist of the articles findings.

The question I would like to ask is, do any of you know of such a study being performed? And could this relate to homosexuality within humans?

If it's in fact a legitimate real study, it's quite fascinating.

reply to post by Droogie


You are correct. Not only can they reverse homosexuality in homosexual animals they can also prevent it even before birth by giving the mother dietary supplements during gestation.

It appears that homosexuality is little different than say being born with a cleft lip which can be prevented by the mother taking supplements during pregnancy or depression which can be lessened by taking the right medicines.

The strange thing is that many homosexuals actually decry this type of research, because they don't want to accept that their statistically abnormal mating choices are merely caused by a hormone/chemical imbalance in the brain. The identify themselves with their affiliction. Its the same as someone who allows their identity to be defined by their alcoholism or their drug addiction. It makes it hard to help them, which I find sad.

[edit on 14-7-2010 by ZuluChaka]

And humans drink milk from them? perhaps thats the reason why there ate so many shirt lifters arround these days.

reply to post by jaego


Personally, I don't think you should be deragatory to homosexuals. You are not being very compassionate. What if you had been born with this imbalance and had to deal with its effects?

Originally posted by ZuluChaka
reply to post by jaego

 

Personally, I don't think you should be deragatory to homosexuals. You are not being very compassionate. What if you had been born with this imbalance and had to deal with its effects?

Where do I gets mines then? I was not born normal yet nobody lines up to kiss my adz because I'm a cripple?
Should you have the inclination to publicly define 'normal' and 'abnormal' and get back to us with it, I'd love to see how you define those who intrinsically is not oriented to procreate and perpetuate the species as the prime directive. Because someone is abnormal in some way doesnt mean they should be autmatically discounted or disliked OR AUTOMATICALLY GIVEN A PASS and emulated.

It's not as simple as a chemical imbalance. Studies have shown that the amygdala is different in homosexuals. This is a development that would have had to occur in utero and would be caused by genetic coding.

reply to post by mordant1


Well I am sorry if I offended you in anyway. I would not make fun of someone born with a handicap either, and I think that people who do are vile. I believe that we should treat people with respect. None of us were born perfectly, but some of us are more able to hide the defects we were born with.

[edit on 14-7-2010 by ZuluChaka]

reply to post by Xcalibur254


If it is caused by genetic encoding then why is it that by simply giving a mother dietary supplements during pregnancy you can make it so that offspring are not born with homosexual tendencies?

Even if this is something that happens in the womb and could be described as an 'imbalance' ...

It's not life threatening. It's technically not even classifiable as a problem to most people. It's certainly not a disease. It's difference. Variation.

Are we going to give out medication for everyone who has personality variations we don't like caused by hormonal mixes? Perhaps we should divert doctors to normalizing skin pigments which are slightly off? Maybe assist people in assuming more correct gender roles?

Many of these differences have assisted in the evolution/society of many animal species over time. It's not something we should be afraid of. If a system to alter homosexuality comes up, and if a person believes it is a personal problem to them ... I would have no problem having them seek help doing this. If someone is different and is fine being different, why bother changing them?

I think we would be being a little arrogant assuming we know the correct balances of nature ... Doesn't matter anyway, this thread is going to be the usual explosion of anti-homosexual and pro-homosexual hysteria.

It saddens me that more words are used every year on this debate than almost any other on the planet.

Edit: Oh just random addition to this ... I recommend Stephen Fry's documentary regarding bipolar. Many bipolar people if offered a cure would not want to it - there's something about the integral parts that make us and I would never begrudge anyone their right to keep those parts.



[edit on 14-7-2010 by Pinke]

Originally posted by ZuluChaka
reply to post by mordant1

 

Well I am sorry if I offended you in anyway. I would not make fun of someone born with a handicap either, and I think that people who do are vile. I believe that we should treat people with respect. None of us were born perfectly, but some of us are more able to hide the defects we were born with.

[edit on 14-7-2010 by ZuluChaka]

My point is that there is nothing necessarily wonderful or evil with being considered abnormal, certainly nothing to be gained by 'normalizing' the abnormal into a definition of normal that all but the truely statistically normal are admitted. By no stretch of imagination would it benefit me to be considered normal, because I'm not.

I think this i pretty obvious. Homosexuals are extreme with their emotional temperaments. Guys are either very macho or a bit feminine. Women are either a bit mannish or very feminine. I had a single relationship with a guy when I was 17. I tried it out and didn't really like it. The point is that I'm just a little feminine and was curious enough to try it out. I think if I was just a little more feminine I'd cross the threshold and be genuinely attracted to guys.

reply to post by Pinke


I agree with you. I think the way to approach this problem is to offer the dietary supplements to pregnant mothers and their husbands and tell them that it will lessen the chance of their offspring being born homosexual. Then they can choose what they feel is right for the child.

My guess is that many will choose to take the supplements and within a few generations this wont even be an issue.

reply to post by mordant1


I see your point. My reply is that if your mother could have taken something that would have prevented your handicap wouldnt you have wanted her to? Just think if your wife were pregnant and the doctor said by taking a supplement he could almost insure your child could avoid your handicap, wouldnt you choose that for your child so that he would be able to all the things that you struggled with?

[edit on 14-7-2010 by ZuluChaka]

Another thing you guys may want to consider is the xenoestrogens and xenoandrogens in our environment. Men are being chemically castrated. Sperm quality and testosterone levels are dwindling. I do think that the elite are well aware of this all, and not only allow it but research and fund this crap in the environment as a means of population control; both in numbers and via confusion, docility, etc..

Hmmm, I have an uncle with a dairy farm, and also, when I lived near Kentwood, LA, almost everybody had cows there. ( the dairyland of the south) Those for the main part are grass, hay fed.

It's common for females to jump on other females that are "quickening."

None of the female cows in LA, where I was, were given hormones.

I think it's just part of nature.

I have a couple of male dogs, they spend a great part of the day, going at each other, but supposedly it is to prove who the most dominant male of the pack is.

By the way, cows are female, and bulls are male. So, do you mean lesbianism, in cows? LOL

reply to post by Blanca Rose


I am just guessing as to what the OP meant, but I think the research started because there were bulls who werent mating with the cows. From a farmers standpoint this is a loss of production and so they were looking to find a solution.

Originally posted by ZuluChaka
I think the way to approach this problem is to offer the dietary supplements to pregnant mothers and their husbands and tell them that it will lessen the chance of their offspring being born homosexual. Then they can choose what they feel is right for the child.

I'm really curious about whether you have a source for this idea that dietary supplements during pregnancy affect homosexuality?

I was looking into this issue as it relates to cattle the other day and the only sources I found had to do with freemartinism, which occurs when there is cross-linkage between a female and a male calf in utero -- the female doesn't develop normally and in addition to being infertile may demonstrate male-type behavior.

I don't know if that's what the OP was talking about, but it's all I found.

Similarly, the only relevant studies I've found in humans involve congenital adrenal hyperplasia (there have been a couple recent ATS threads on a study about whether a specific treatment -- not a dietary supplement, by the way -- lessens the likelihood of masculinized behavior and lesbianism in affected people).

Most gays don't fall under this category, and the reasons for treating this disorder have relatively little to do with homosexuality per se and much more to do with the other physical problems associated with congenital adrenal hyperplasia.

reply to post by ZuluChaka


Yes, well, I am not an expert, but, I can say down here, unless it is a corporate farm, these live on grass, hay, and salage, with no hormones.

Not too many farms have a lot of bulls, and I do know for example that on farms where there is only one bull, the farmer has to sell the bulls, and get new ones every so often, because they are all related. They don't want them to interbreed, so perhaps that is a reason, also.

My husband has an aunt and uncle, who for a living, collect sperm, and inseminate cows. They make a lot of money doing it!

You must be speaking of individual, rather than large dairies, where the owner, such as in the case of my uncle, would use the services of my husbands aunt and uncle. They don't have to wait and see if a cow is impregnated, when they can shove their arm up, and do it themselves!

reply to post by americandingbat


Here is a link, but not the one I was looking for which is much more scientific. If I find it I will post it as well. This one merely mentions the research and the controversy it created, but I hope it will lead you to more info.

New York Times

[edit on 14-7-2010 by ZuluChaka]