Homosexuality in cattle: Related to hormonal imbalance?

reply to post by americandingbat


Here is another

New Scientist

Sorry but still not the one I was looking for which clearly stated that by giving the mothers a certain hormonal therapy they could prevent the rams from being born gay.

This is exactly what is being done to the "Human Cattle" population in developed countries. Not so much in undeveloped countries.

Endocrine disruptor's & phytoestrogens can mimic natural hormones like estrogen, thyroid hormones, and androgens.


Phytoestrogens in the food supply such as unfermented forms of soy, & Endocrine disruptors in the shampoo's and soaps, plastics (BPA) contribute greatly to this.

www.niehs.nih.gov...

Edit: Also I'd like to point out that all this is not an accident, its population control plain and simple. Wished I could find a gov doc to prove this like NSSM 2000 proved the abortion agenda.


[edit on 14-7-2010 by zzombie]

reply to post by ZuluChaka


Thanks for the links. Explains why I couldn't find anything -- I was searching for "cattle" and the study these discuss looked at sheep/rams.

It still doesn't say anything about dietary supplements altering sexual preference (although the NYTimes article says that there were false reports about that). I'll try and see if I can turn up the actual study itself.

edit to add:

Here's the quote from the NYTimes article about the London Times misreporting the study results:

The news media storm reached its zenith last month, when The Sunday Times in London published an article under the headline “Science Told: Hands Off Gay Sheep.” It asserted, incorrectly, that Dr. Roselli had worked successfully to “cure” homosexual rams with hormone treatments, and added that “critics fear” that the research “could pave the way for breeding out homosexuality in humans.”

Source (emphasis added)

[edit on 7/14/2010 by americandingbat]

reply to post by americandingbat


Yeah I know those articles dont cover the hormone therapy, but it was widely reported at one time. Thanks for help in finding it again. It seems to me that maybe they have backed off on discussing the full extent of their research due to pressure from Peta and prominent homsexuals.

The original article I found years ago had the doctor himself quoted as saying that by using hormone therapy they could prevent it. I believe it was from OSU's website or some agricultural site.

[edit on 14-7-2010 by ZuluChaka]

I am so sorry for making a post that may be perceived as being of topic but i found this very funny, not because i disagree or want to discredit the thread, far from it this is also not the first time i have heard of homosexual animals

The reason i found it funny is because it took me back to the first time i seen Ricky Gervis’s “animals” stand up routine. He talks about homosexual animals and even has pictures and diagrams i would give specifics but if was to recite any of Ricky’s material on ATS not only could i not do the great man justice but i would most decently be banned for life from ATS.

reply to post by americandingbat


Here is a pretty good article.. still not the holy grail yet though.

Medical News Today

This article cleary discusses how it is most likely biological and not purely genetic. They even graze the topic of certain chemical or hormonal therapies.

God, I wish I could find that article.. It is driving me nuts.

reply to post by ZuluChaka


I did find the abstract for the study Dr. Roselli published in the journal Endocrine. It's pretty dense reading, and I don't have access to the whole article without paying.

The effect of aromatase inhibition on the sexual differentiation of the sheep brain

They actually seem to have been trying to cause homosexuality, not prevent it, in order to test the relationship they had hypothesized. And I'm not at all sure I'm reading it correctly, but I think the abstract says that there was an effect on male's mounting behavior (males treated with the inhibitor in utero showed decreased mounting behavior) but I don't think it says that they actually saw an increase in homosexual behavior.

edit for grammar

edited again to provide the following link to the abstract for a more recent (2010) review article:

The ovine sexually dimorphic nucleus, aromatase, and sexual partner preferences in sheep



[edit on 7/14/2010 by americandingbat]

reply to post by americandingbat


Thanks for the article and you are right they were trying to cause homosexuality in animals originally. My guess is they figured if they could find out how to cause it then they would gain a better understanding of how it works.

I would like to thank all the contributors of this thread, there are some quality replies that has been submitted. I would like if you have some information regarding studies on this subject to submit the sources and references, if possible that is.

I am in no way intolerant to the homosexuals\lesbians, but I find this information fascinating. And in one way, I would say that now this sexual orientation in fact becomes a choice. And I am aware that people with bipolar disorders can refuse to take their medication, and that they may not feel "like themselves" when they do take their medication. It may very well be that this would be a factor in regards to the hormonal adjustment for homosexuals (or whatever it's called). In which case, I wouldn't think anyone would go for it.

Homosexuality is pretty much accepted by alot of societies these days, and I believe this will only improve in the years to come. So I agree that it really isn't a "problem" at all as some of you call it.

Originally posted by ZuluChaka
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.

This is exactly what I was talking about, sorry if I didn't make it clearer in my original post.

And regarding offering dietary supplements to their parents, are you talking before or after inception? In the case of after, just for the cause of speculating, would maybe this cause the child to feel there is something "missing" as they grow older? As in the case of the people with bipolar disorder mentioned above, would it be concievable that the offspring could feel it somewhat the same way? And maybe not being able to do anything about it? Sorry if this doesn't sound probable, but it's nothing more than a speculation.

[edit on 14-7-2010 by Droogie]

reply to post by Droogie


Good question. My quess, and that is all it is, is that people who suffer from bipolar disorder have been bipolar for most of their lives before begining treatment. So of course it is going to feel different. Its that and just like alcholism and drug addiction your brain sometimes tries to convince you to drink or take drugs, a bipolar brain will convince the person they dont need their meds.

I believe that if you addressed being bipolar or homosexual in the womb that the person would never have a sense that something is missing or odd. Hope that makes sense and of course it is just a semi educated guess.

[edit on 14-7-2010 by ZuluChaka]

reply to post by ZuluChaka


Yes, thanks for the post, this does indeed make sense. Would be interesting if someone else had another take on this as well though, or something that might be comparable.

Originally posted by Pinke

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.

[edit on 14-7-2010 by Pinke]

Science are humans way to understand nature, and in some cases change it. In this particular case it has benefits in the way of increasing the number of cattle, thus creating more nutriments that is needed in this ever expanding population. But I agree, humans don't necessarily have the foresight to predict any negative ramifications this implies.

And regarding the - "explosion of anti-homosexual and pro-homosexual hysteria" - this is certainly not my intention, in which case I will ask this thread to be closed.

Edit:

reply to post by ZuluChaka


No, at this moment I like where it's headed. But in the case of the thread being taken over by this so-called "hysteria", I don't see any point in pursuing this topic any further.

[edit on 14/7/10 by Droogie]

[edit on 14/7/10 by Droogie]

reply to post by Droogie


I see no need to close the thread. You didnt do anything wrong and we chastized the one or two negative comments toward homosexuals.

I think sometimes people just get oversensitive and take things like scientific research and see them as gay bashing just because they are oversensitive or do not value scientific research.

Originally posted by ZuluChaka
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]

My handicap didnt ecome apparent until some time later.
The assumption that there is a solution or preventative for every problem isnt based on science or reality, more on consumerist fantasy whereby selling chap .crap for dear prices is more often than not the goal. Simple solutions exist only in simple minds. There are ten thousand human conditions possible not to exclude spontaneous mutation, so how do you choose even if you could intervene without making things possibly worse? You cant. WIth a rate of birth defects of 3% your odds of failing is hhigh enough that anyone responsible for promising prevention will fail and in the states be sued to death.
No I wouldnt have more kids out of fear that I would transmit it, but many in my position do as many are younger women needing to drop a kid, unwilling to understand that they are more than likely gonna provide for a legacy of disability and pain

No one is closing the thread. It is a good topic, albeit controversial. So that said, I will ask that everyone who wants to participate in this thread to remember their manners and stay on topic.

[edit on 14-7-2010 by projectvxn]

reply to post by mordant1


I agree that we cannot fix every possible issue in the near term. However, we should try to alleviate afflictions wherever possible. Should we let a kid be born with a cleft lip when we know we can most likely prevent it from happening with proper diet and supplements?

It is through gradually learning to avoid the afflictions we can that eventually, hundreds of years from now, the rate of birth defects could drop well below 1%. How is that a bad thing?

Originally posted by mordant1
Simple solutions exist only in simple minds.

I don't agree with this at all. Geniouses are people that is being confronted with complex problems and answers with simple solutions. Idiots and fools are the ones that find complex solutions to simple problems. I don't say that this is true always, but to say what you are saying as a general fact is ignorant.

And to be quite frank, I'm surprised this news hasn't been as widely publicised proportional to it's "value" in todays society. I would think it had a profound impact on how society views this subject, in my view it's pretty ground-braking. Who knows what this might further lead to, every scientific finding leads to further scientific progression within different fields of study. So every find has an enormous potential.

Disclaimer: I am not saying there is a homosexual agenda, and I certainly don't believe there is one, I am merely portraying my thoughts around the subject.

Originally posted by ZuluChaka
reply to post by mordant1

 

I agree that we cannot fix every possible issue in the near term. However, we should try to alleviate afflictions wherever possible. Should we let a kid be born with a cleft lip when we know we can most likely prevent it from happening with proper diet and supplements?

It is through gradually learning to avoid the afflictions we can that eventually, hundreds of years from now, the rate of birth defects could drop well below 1%. How is that a bad thing?

No offense, but that's just a garbage post, & garbage logic, you have to act, not dream and show results in a real world. Devils dance in the details.
Your logic assumes ideal results and no unintended results, and it just doesnt happen that way on this planet, so why pretend it would? You have to get results and then crow about the mechanism, not the other way around and insinuate that those actuallly charged with trying to implement what you desire have some kind of choice in the matter and do the wrong thing for perverse reasons. Reality always dictates the wisdom of allied concepts, not the other way around.

[edit on 14-7-2010 by mordant1]