The queer's just keep pushing...

[Gem]

Sex Differentiation Disorders


HERMAPHRODITE
Accepted definition: A person born with both male and female sex organs.This is a vague, confusing and inaccurate definition. There are 3 labels of Hermaphrodites: True, Male pseudo and Female Pseudo. All are equally genuine.
TRUE
A person born with both ovary and testicular tissue, this could be 2 seperate gonads ( one of each) or a combination of both in one (an ovotestes). The genitalia can vary from completely male or female, to a combination of both or even ambiguous looking. The chromosome (karotype) compliment can be XX (female), XY (male), XX/XY (mosiac) or even XO (extremely rare). Those XX with female genitalia are raised female ( some have even given birth). Those XY with male genitalia are raised male ( a few have fathered children). The children born XX/XY or XO (with genitalia male or female are raised in the sex they look most like) ,Those born with ambiguous genitalia have many medical tests for the doctors to determine which sex they should be assigned. Doctors then recommend early surgery to make the child look physically like the sex assigned to them.

CAUSES
The causes are not known, The medical community does know this is a very rare condition but do not have accurate figures to how many people have this condition (depending on the literature between 350-450 known cases).

FEMALE PSEUDO
A person born XX with normal female internal organs but with "masculanized" genitalia. They can appear more male then female or a combination of each.

CAUSES
The most common is Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia (CAH) it occurs approximately 1:14,000 births.This is when the adrenal glands overproduce testosterone. It also has been recorded that some persons with this disorder had been exposed to progesterone-like drugs before they were born.

MALE PSEUDO
A person born XY with testes (usually in the abdominal cavity). The external genitalia are usually female but can be ambiguous.

CAUSES
The most common cause is Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome (AIS). This is when the body doesn't respond to the androgen being produced. There are different variations: Complete (CAIS) , and Partial (PAIS). This condition has a variety of names and occurance rates.


http://users.southeast.net/~help/sexdiff.html


Now this information, coming from a support group for people with sexual differentiation disorders and their families....lists all of the examples we have been mentioning as abnormalities.

Shall we then lump homosexuality in with these disorders, as MissileMan suggested when he stated : "My question for those who are maintaining that people aren't born homosexual is: "If a person can be born with a genetic malfunction that drastically affects their physical sexual identity, why is it so far fetched that there may be less visually obvious genetic malfunctions in the brain that also affect their mental/psychological sexual identity?"

 

[freeandfun1]

When they've spent the money and gathered sufficient evidence to support it, ID will warrant the same status as the theory of evolution.

they have NO proof that people are born gay, yet you accept it because it is PC. There is no proof of ID, yet you won't accept it because it isn't PC. That is my point. Isn't that a double standard? Yes it is. You belong to the PC group I see. You follow.

 

[NATO AIR]

I think ID is pretty f*****g cool myself, and its always interesting and beneficial to compare and contrast theories (evolution vs. ID)

with gays, hey, i do the same, and weigh them against my personal experience. i know folks who do not want to be gay, who fight every day to surpress feelings they don't like, but whom since day one people have always said were a little "funny"

then on the other hand, i know gays who love being gay and wouldn't be straight for anything in the world... and i wonder about them, could this just be a lifestyle and sexual preference choice?

we just don't know at this point. as always, you've got your bombthrowers on both sides who poison the debate (and i've been guilty of going overboard on here about this before) for everybody else who are just trying to figure it all out.

 

[CivilLiberty]

Ive never seen a hermaphrodite. Never seen pictures. I have no reason to believe such people exist.

Photos are readily available in medical journal on the subject.

And there are 1610 photos here:

http://images.google.com/images?q=hermaphrodite&num=100&hl=en&lr=&sa=N&tab=wi

A

 

[CivilLiberty]

there is no way you actualy belive the shit you write

Of course I do, or I wouldn't write it.


A

 

[no1tovote4]

There is a theory that people are born homosexual that has not yet been proven or disproven through the process of science. Therefore either way is simply a belief. Some people believe that there is no choice and people were simply born with an urge towards people of the same sex, some people believe that it is a choice and nobody was born with such an urge.

To me is seems illogical to assume that some people might not be born with such an urge, it also seems illogical to assume that all homosexuals were born with that urge. It seems more logical to assume that it is a mixture of the two. However, like any fetish, I see no reason to deny these people the right to do as they please or to demonize them. It's just wrong doesn't seem to be a strong enough argument to convince me that there is some need to justify poor treatment of people because of whom they may want to sleep with.

 

[dmp]

There is a theory that people are born homosexual that has not yet been proven or disproven through the process of science. Therefore either way is simply a belief. Some people believe that there is no choice and people were simply born with an urge towards people of the same sex, some people believe that it is a choice and nobody was born with such an urge.

To me is seems illogical to assume that some people might not be born with such an urge, it also seems illogical to assume that all homosexuals were born with that urge. It seems more logical to assume that it is a mixture of the two. However, like any fetish, I see no reason to deny these people the right to do as they please or to demonize them. It's just wrong doesn't seem to be a strong enough argument to convince me that there is some need to justify poor treatment of people because of whom they may want to sleep with.

We aren't talking about urges...we're talking about responsible decision-making. I'd bet those who like to do sheep argue they are simply following their urges. Same with those who rape or kill or lie. People need to understand it's an issue of 'Behaviour' NOT 'desires'.


...and theories have NO requirement to be proven WRONG; it's up to those who suggest theories to provide evidence validating the idea. So far, the best argument Libs can come up with is "Who would CHOOSE to be gay??" which is self-defeating, imo.

 

[no1tovote4]

We aren't talking about urges...we're talking about responsible decision-making. I'd bet those who like to do sheep argue they are simply following their urges. Same with those who rape or kill or lie. People need to understand it's an issue of 'Behaviour' NOT 'desires'.


...and theories have NO requirement to be proven WRONG; it's up to those who suggest theories to provide evidence validating the idea. So far, the best argument Libs can come up with is "Who would CHOOSE to be gay??" which is self-defeating, imo.

Responsible decision making is a relative term. Some people skydive, it is dangerous, should we make it illegal? Did they make a responsible choice?

I still can't see why there would be reason to establish in law a secondary status for people who make this choice but not for people who make other choices that may or may not be dangerous to them.

A homosexual who was monogamous with a partner would have less danger than a heterosexual who was promiscuous and with many partners, yet it is the homosexual we would like to deny certain things to and allow them to be derided for how they entertain themselves. I see no logical reason for such a choice by society.

 

[MissileMan]

they have NO proof that people are born gay, yet you accept it because it is PC. There is no proof of ID, yet you won't accept it because it isn't PC. That is my point. Isn't that a double standard? Yes it is. You belong to the PC group I see. You follow.

There is no evidence to support either choice or genetics atm. I am basing my belief that it is genetic on common sense. It has nothing to do with PC. I've never said that ID isn't possible, only that at present time there isn't sufficient evidence to warrant teaching it as a plausible theory in schools. And for the record...most of the PC stuff is pure bullshit!

 

[dmp]

Responsible decision making is a relative term. Some people skydive, it is dangerous, should we make it illegal? Did they make a responsible choice?

I still can't see why there would be reason to establish in law a secondary status for people who make this choice but not for people who make other choices that may or may not be dangerous to them.

A homosexual who was monogamous with a partner would have less danger than a heterosexual who was promiscuous and with many partners, yet it is the homosexual we would like to deny certain things to and allow them to be derided for how they entertain themselves. I see no logical reason for such a choice by society.

Homosexuality harms society, however...and homosexuals are many times more promiscuous than heterosexuals; Finding a monogamous homosexual is like finding a bigfoot.

 

[no1tovote4]

Homosexuality harms society, however...and homosexuals are many times more promiscuous than heterosexuals; Finding a monogamous homosexual is like finding a bigfoot.

I think that is wrong. It is like saying finding a monogamous teenager is like finding bigfoot. Or like saying finding a teenager that practices celibacy is like finding bigfoot.

Personally finding promiscuity to be repugnant and working through societal norms to weed out those people is logical, but picking on one group becuase they are homosexual rather than because they are promiscuous is simply trying to get rid of a fetish that you don't like, not the actual societal problem of promiscuity.

 

[OCA]

You obviously are missing the point. Human sexuality is nothing but biology - that a subset of human are born transsexual proves that not all humans are sexually "normal", and that some do not possess the hormonal balance for "normal" sexual attraction. it's simple biology. Call homosexuals a genetic mutation of you want, but you can't claim that it's "pure choice" because human sexuality is a fostered by hormonal balances. And like all hormonal balances in nature, they can be UNbalanced in some persons.

It's self evident.

Andy

Ok if that is true we still possess the ability for critical thinking and to reason between right and wrong and since we ALL know that homosexuality is wrong, then why act on it? I mean I have the urge to extort people and run a loansharking operation, I know its wrong so I don't do it, same shit with the queers, they know they are wrong but look for any excuse to try and prove they are not and they have many apologists working for them such as yourself.

 

[OCA]

You mean like you just did? There's no proof one way or the other yet. The statement you made that by default it is a choice is your opinion, it is not a fact. I could say that you're an idiot until it's proven otherwise, that would be an opinion.

Here's a question for you though...what would you consider the appropriate sex of a partner for a hermaphrodite? If it's a matter of choice, which should that person choose?

I think they should make a choice and either have their cock clipped or the hole sewn up. Hermaphrodites are the m&m that didn't get colored, they are a fuck up and should either be corrected or treated like the freak they are.

As in jury trials the burden of proof lies with the prosecution, and since we the choice believers are the defendants then the defendant is considered a choice until proven otherwise. Sorry I didn't make the rules I just live by them.

Come on HLCP's! Spend a few more million dollars trying to find the genetic link, I mean just because its never been found throughout- history doesn't mean its not out there, right? :teeth:

 

[OCA]

The answer to that question is in my reply to his post, but I'll repeat it. He stated that homosexuality is a choice by default until it is proven otherwise. That is an opinion.

And yes, a majority of hermaphrodites are born with unusual genitalia, but there are some born who are indeed both sexes. My question for those who are maintaining that people aren't born homosexual is: "If a person can be born with a genetic malfunction that drastically affects their physical sexual identity, why is it so far fetched that there may be less visually obvious genetic malfunctions in the brain that also affect their mental/psychological sexual identity?"

If it is in the brain then it can be fixed by medicine or psychology or both. Or if they are incureable they can be placed in an institution. That is what we do with severely retarded people and that is what you're suggesting here, right?

 

[CivilLiberty]

ISpend a few more million dollars trying to find the genetic link, I mean just because its never been found throughout- history doesn't mean its not out there, right? :teeth:

From a few days ago:

http://my.webmd.com/content/article/100/105486.htm

"The genetic scans showed a clustering of the same genetic pattern among the gay men on three chromosomes -- chromosomes 7, 8, and 10."


For someone that claims to be a member of the master race (and you're not blonde, so I don't know how you think you qualify), you're not using your brain.

Clearly biological factors affect attraction impulses, and since '93 studies have shown correlation to genetic markers.


The issue as to if it's a condition like depression that should be treated is separate. Attempts have been made to treat it since the 50s with little success. And then, you you propose mandated treatment? Can you name any other thing that the government has the right to mandate treatment for? It's none of the government's fucking business.


A

 

[no1tovote4]

From a few days ago:

http://my.webmd.com/content/article/100/105486.htm

"The genetic scans showed a clustering of the same genetic pattern among the gay men on three chromosomes -- chromosomes 7, 8, and 10."


For someone that claims to be a member of the master race (and you're not blonde, so I don't know how you think you qualify), you're not using your brain.

Clearly biological factors affect attraction impulses, and since '93 studies have shown correlation to genetic markers.


The issue as to if it's a condition like depression that should be treated is separate. Attempts have been made to treat it since the 50s with little success. And then, you you propose mandated treatment? Can you name any other thing that the government has the right to mandate treatment for? It's none of the government's fucking business.


A

Did you read the article? Only 40-60% of this is supposed to come from the genes and it is only based on the observation of the gene in homosexual men, not from testing and checking into whether this same gene set shows up and how often in heterosexual men. This study was fundamentally flawed and still only came up with 40-60% may be related to genetics. Are the other 60-40% choicers? Where do they fit in?

 

[OCA]

Andy - you are obviously on one side of the issue here. my question is what bothers you more, the fact that some of these posts are from people against gays, or are you gay yourself and take offense?

Evil it doesn't matter, soon there will be a constitutional amendment at least banning marriage among gays. His study was of 3 queers, 3! Yet once again the study is not definitive, it is not the holy grail. Until such time by default it is a choice. He can keep on describing mental illness and calling it a link to homosexuality, we'll all just laugh.

 

[OCA]

Did you read the article, 40-60% of this is supposed to come from the genes and it is only based on the observation of the gene in homosexual men, not from testing and checking into whether this same genes show up and how often in heterosexual men. This study was fundamentally flawed and still only came up with 40-60% may be related to genetics. Are the other 60-40% choicers? Where do they fit in?

And this supposed to be definitive proof by Civil. I just think he's unhappy that he made the choice to be queer.

Also Civil, you must be a real dumbass if you don't know who that is in my avatar. I'm Greek moron, the original master race, who the fuck said that blondes are superior?

 

[CivilLiberty]

Andy - you are obviously on one side of the issue here. my question is what bothers you more, the fact that some of these posts are from people against gays, or are you gay yourself and take offense?

1) I'm not on "one" side of the issue, but I'm pointing out the science that human attraction is very biological.

2) I am not gay. (does that even look like a gay haircut?!?!) lol.

 

[CivilLiberty]

Did you read the article? Only 40-60% of this is supposed to come from the genes and it is only based on the observation of the gene in homosexual men, not from testing and checking into whether this same gene set shows up and how often in heterosexual men. This study was fundamentally flawed and still only came up with 40-60% may be related to genetics. Are the other 60-40% choicers? Where do they fit in?

The study pointed out, quite correctly, that both environmental and other biological factors come into play.

The only point I'm making is that to claim that "all humans are only capable of real attraction to the opposite sex" as OCA did is PURE Bullshit.


If you want to have an argument regarding "acting on impulses" or other issues, that's separate.

A