Trent

Please be careful what you read. While this article probably isn't 100% inaccurate... you read stuff like this ... and you have to get an idea of what the motivations of the people writing it are. Maybe stick with the stuff that is more scientific in origin and then come back to the protest sites to see what some people are saying. Oh, hello again!

SHHHHH!!! What do you know? You've only been there! Sheesh! We need to listen to the "hotel room reporters" as to whether or not a civil war is breaking out, THEY know what's up! If people want to call the ongoing violence a "civil war" because it makes things sound worse... that's one thing... but it doesn't make it true. I'll listen to people like you, thanks. Heal up fast, and get to freeflying! Oh, hello again!

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060325/ap_on_re_eu/russia_us_iraq_war_4;_ylt=AvnddxNXu.wxBBZx95_uBhBX6GMA;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl Suuuuure.... we can trust them with Iran.... Seems a lot of people ignored the Russian and French support of Iraq under the table... maybe we'll hear more about Russian and China in Iran before it gets too ugly. Oh, hello again!

Since the state runs everything in Chinese government, the Chinese government is selling corpses to cosmetics companies?? We should DEFINITELY trust these guys with our weapons secrets... and there's NO QUESTION we can count on their ethics in defending Iran's nuke program... Wish I could live long enough to watch all this play out.... Oh, hello again!

So THAT'S why our government has secretly been conspiring to contribute to global warming... so they can raise the ocean levels and sell their holdings in South Dakota as beachfront property!! I KNEW IT! I'm making a website about it so all the ignorant lemmings can SEE how we're totally fucked! Oh, hello again!

This and your other post about the US being 400 years old is starting to make me a little curious... how long does a year last where you're from?? For Masterblaster.... ... My bad, ONE poster states that he thinks it's fiction and all of a sudden EVERY poster who isn't a DZ.COM lefty is committing character assassination on this ex-SAS dude? Really? REALLY? Wow... awesome. You're right, I was just looking for a reason to get angry... entirely unlike the reactions to those who disagreed with the article posted. Oh, hello again!

Here's a link to the full "Trapped in the Closet" SouthPark episode. Required viewing.... http://www.contemporaryinsanity.org/content/view/548/49/ Oh, hello again!

You guys act like a bunch of old women who just heard someone say a dirty word for the first time. Not that the first few posts to voice opinions against the article were the most brilliant posts ever, but they did not attack the dude's character. Read them again, then take a few breaths. The closest that you could even come to thinking you heard a character attack on the British guy was that someone was amazed he could tell insurgents just by looking at them and said he must be superman or wonderwoman. Talk about a bunch of people who are just LOOKING for a reason to be upset... damn. Oh, if you want to argue back and forth about this... go read the thread again. It's all there. If you don't see it this time. I have nothing to say to you. Oh, hello again!

What?? Because there is some "normal" amount of hormonal exposure... using the word "lack" or "under-exposure" is a value judgement? So should we call starving people "varied in caloric intake" instead of "lacking in food" because they might feel bad that they "lack" something. Come on. And I've never stated what I think the cause of homosexuality to be either... merely asked some questions that would be asked sooner or later by someone. I've never said anything like that myself... and I haven't seen them here in this thread. In fact, I haven't seen it very often in SC really. But sure, I know some folks may think that. And, BTW, this week's gay thread was started by a gay dude. So no bitching about that. Well, then... maybe this kind of research will eventually lead to parents being able to tell if their kid will be gay or whatever so that they can abort it and try again. Maybe that'd be better. Or maybe it'd save some kids a lot of pain and grief if it could be "fixed" beforehand since they may have ignorant parents. Who knows... but I'm sure we won't be the last to discuss this. And for Rhonda... the article talks about effeminate behavior more than homosexuality... if I recall correctly, because the kids they were studying weren't old enough to know if they were gay or not. Homosexuality was introduced as a possible result of this "hormonal variation" (happy?). But that's just what I remember... I didn't read it necessarily as an explanation of why gay people are gay per se. Oh, hello again!

You don't have to assume... it was in my post that I didn't hold that opinion. If research is showing that homosexuality (or in this case, feminine behavior) is caused by an under-exposure to certain hormones... then it is definitely up for debate on whether or not it is something that should be treated. A lot of people rejected the idea that homosexuality was a psychological problem, many people want it to be genetic, but then if someone comes up with research saying that it is due to a lack of hormones during fetal development and that it may be "fixable"... that's bad too. Of course parents will love their kids no matter what... with a few retarded exceptions, but it isn't unnatural for parents to want their children to grow up straight either. I guess I just don't see "fixing" it to be as extreme as messing with genetics to create a little superman. You guys do... okay. We disagree on many things. So parents who would prefer to have a straight kid think that gays are sex crazed sodomites? Where'd you get that... no one here is saying that. Like I said, most parents will love the kids no matter what... but would probably prefer them to be straight. What's wrong with that? Oh, hello again!

Fuck yeah! Food is just an addiction with EXTREME withdrawal symptoms anyway. Oh, hello again!

Maybe they were "meant" to be infertile. That's not a health risk. Now THAT is a good reason to treat it... BUT (you knew it was coming, right?) on the extreme side, someone could say that we shouldn't be monkeying with how a fetus develops... maybe it should have the increased mortality risk. But that's just for conversation... not my opinion. Oh, hello again!

So I guess you'd be against doing it in cases like in the article below? It doesn't seem to be a life-threatening case. Maybe they were just "supposed" to have ambiguous development after all and doctors be damned for making them "normal". http://www.iupac.org/publications/pac/2003/pdf/7511x2013.pdf Oh, hello again!

Not to distract from you two bashing Steel because you have decided that he is an anti-gay bigot.... I do find it interesting that many of the people who answered my question in the negative (no, we shouldn't correct a hormonal imbalance that could result in having effeminate male children) also seem to be the people who are pro-choice. So it's okay to kill the fetus because you don't want a kid, but it's not okay to balance their hormonal exposure? Wierd. Kinda similar to the pro-choice anti-death-penalty dichotomy. Anyway, back to calling someone a bigot because they don't agree with what you do or think... Oh, hello again!

You're excused... cuz yer not frum here... But we've only been around since 1776. That's 230 years. Oh, hello again!

Then we have to argue about what "normal" is. But that's apparently not a nice thing to do. No matter what I think about what should be done (if anything is even possible in reality)... I think Sundevil brings up the point that if this research is for real, these questions WILL come up on a bigger scale. I guess we see what some of the dz people think... wonder what'll really happen? Oh, hello again!

I never said it did, did I? Or were you just speaking in generalities? If you want to wax philosophical, you could modify that to say "different" doesn't always equate to good either... except in the minds of the ignorant. But I have a feeling that you woulda just called me ignorant if you wanted to. By definition, something that only occurs 10% of the time wouldn't be the norm... would it? ... but I'm probably wrong for so many reasons... Oh, and I didn't mean a treatment AFTER birth either. I guess that wasn't clear... thought it was. Oh, hello again!

I guess you could say that... but if there were a simple medical reason for it that is a result of a hormonal deficiency... why not take care of it. You could say that the fetus was "supposed" to get hormones that it isn't getting and we're just making it right... couldn't you? Oh, hello again!

I'm not sure you read the article or the whole discussion here... I'm referencing the article's ideas in a 'what if' kinda way. Oh, hello again!

Then that certain so-called degree of bisexuality would be obtained by having the hormonal levels of the fetus "normalized" wouldn't it? From either direction... If people want to argue that there is no "normal" (not saying that's you), they can look up the definition. Oh, hello again!

Oh I hear you... I just didn't think it'd be a "cosmetic" type thing. I would think that the option would be to do nothing or to bring the hormone levels to "normal" based on some average of levels tested in other "normal" pregnancies. I do realize that people can and probably will fight to the death over the interpretation of "normal"... Oh, hello again!

Actually it was Korea and Mexico that beat the US this year. And guess what? The US deserved it. Our pro players (with some exceptions) are too great either in contract size or ego to play for the US Team... soooo... we don't ever get the real "best" team to represent us. Sad... but hey... Jeter and Clemens were out there trying! Korea will dominate on everyone. They're the only undefeated team out there. Cuba will get destroyed by the DR like they did once already. Communists or not... they just have a young and weak team. What WAS interesting was all the protests against Cuba and Castro at the games though. Funny. Why would it be any different next year? The US rarely wins anything at the Olympics in baseball either... they don't deny that. You're assuming too much pride on the US Team's part. The fact is... not a lot of people care... including the athletes that SHOULD be on the US team. Oh, hello again!

Yeah, that's an answer. I didn't think of it going as far as "tailoring" the kid to be some specific amount of masculine... more along the lines of the doctors testing and saying... "We've found that your child is lacking in exposure to testosterone in the womb. This may lead to the child being feminine in nature, homosexual, or have problems identifying with a specific gender. We can treat it with some exposure to testosterone at a mild level to help negate this if you'd like." I didn't think about people trying to have Schwarzenegger babies just out of the womb... Oh, hello again!

That's not an answer to my question. The article talks about how pre-natal exposure to hormones may be a strong reason that people exhibit feminine behavior. If that can be detected at an early age, should it be treated? Really, answer the question. To answer your distracting question... If a boy is exhibiting dangerous-to-his-health muscular development, then treat it... Otherwise... boys are "supposed" to like rough sports and strutting... leave it alone. But you're trying to make a rhetorical point here, aren't you? If parents have the option to treat "femininity" in male fetuses that may give the kid a chance at a "normal" (notice the quotations) life, would that be a bad thing? The treat all kinds of things on unborn children, why not that too? And no one has really addressed my questions, which were and still are honest. I guess the subject is too touchy. Oh, hello again!

I'm sure I'll reap the wraith of those that are more "progressive" than myself, but I have an honest question... The article seems to lean more towards femine behaviors stemming from a hormonal irregularity in the womb more than it does genetics. (at least it did to me... seems more plausible with the twins example anyway) So do you think that homosexuality should be viewed as a hormonal disorder or, dare I say it, a birth defect that could (maybe) be corrected or influenced (as in the rats in the report)? I guess what I'm saying is that IF it is not genetic, but hormonal, and can be "fixed"... should we treat it like any other "defect" and "fix" it before the child fully develops? Oh, hello again!