It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
I've read your other posts on the subject, on other threads.
That's about as dismissive of my post as you can actually get
If you can provide some evidence that would change.
Secondary sex determination affects the bodily phenotype outside the gonads. A male mammal has a penis, seminal vesicles, and prostate gland. A female mammal has a vagina, cervix, uterus, oviducts, and mammary glands. In many species, each sex has a sex-specific size, vocal cartilage, and musculature. These secondary sex characteristics are usually determined by hormones secreted from the gonads. However, in the absence of gonads, the female phenotype is generated. When Jost (1953) removed fetal rabbit gonads before they had differentiated, the resulting rabbits had a female phenotype, regardless of whether they were XX or XY. They each had oviducts, a uterus, and a vagina, and each lacked a penis and male accessory structures.
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
On the other hand, exogenous estrogens, both steroidal and nonsteroidal, have been shown to exert paradoxical effects on genital morphology and behavior in subhuman animals, i.e., masculinize females and demasculinize males
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
The aim here is to discuss whether 'acceptance' of homosexuality will cause the population to reverse its growth.
I thought it prudent to DEFINE Homosexuality, and the mechanism by which it occurs.
Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by 1/2 Nephilim
Ok.
Homosexuality has existed for as long as human history. How about that?
You know, Sodom and stuff?
Long time ago and there's just been more and more and more of us.
Science disagrees with ya, there is no gay gene.
And you have already seen the link (presumably) where tests have confirmed that Homosexual brains are more similar to the opposite sex than they are to their own genetic sex.
But of course, you are going to use logical fallacies to dismiss what I am saying, instead of actually debating the topic.....
As is typical of your style, Mr Phage.
Please read the title of the topic.
I think the definition of homosexuality is quite clear.
I also don't see you defining it in your previous posts.
You seem bent on attempting to explain its origins
though you don't really do that.
Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by 1/2 Nephilim
Science disagrees with ya, there is no gay gene.
I don't recall saying there was and I don't know that that has been determined or that homosexuality is necessarily of genetic origin. Another member in this thread seems to believe it is of hormonal origins.
In any case you'll agree that it has been around for thousands of years and it's acceptance (or rejection) in various societies throughout history does not seem to have affected the survival of the species a whole lot.
I feel the OP is biased in not showing the extent to which homosexuality is on the rise in the "civilized world".