Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia (CAH) is a rare disorder that has shed a lot of light on how biology shapes sex differences. Girls with the disorder have a defective enzyme, and as a result their adrenal glands begin secreting male hormones well before they are born. The result is that to varying degrees their sexual organs are masculinzed at birth, often resulting in surgical repair. More interestingly, their behavior is masculinized: They are more aggressive, more likely to prefer rough, active play, less attracted to taking care of children, and prefer functional clothing to feminine finery. And even more interestingly, they are more likely to be lesbian. It’s the lesbian thing that has the homosexual activists all worked up.
The reason for their ire is that there is a promising treatment for the disorder. (“A rare disorder, a rarer debate“; LA Times, Aug. 15, 2010). The problem for the activists is that as a side effect of treatment, the girl would be less likely to be lesbian. Horrors! The inside headline in the print edition screams, “Side effect outrages gay advocates.” Their greatest worry is that “some doctors might tell parents that a reduced chance of homosexuality is one of the therapy’s benefits.”
One activist group, Advocates for Informed Choice, “favors allowing children born with intersex conditions to participate in decisions about their gender identity, including delaying a decision until adolescence.”
But by that time the girl would already be masculinized and biologically predisposed to lesbianism. It’s obvious what her “choice” would be. The effects of the hormones during the prenatal period could not be undone at that point. In effect, the girl’s choice would have already been made for her.
So the child cannot meaningfully make a choice. Who can?
Amazingly, there is not one word in the article about what interests the parents have–or even what the real interests of the child are. You don’t have to be an evolutionist to realize that parents have a huge stake in the sexual orientation of their children. It’s likely to be the difference between having grandchildren and not having grandchildren, especially given that these girls have relatively little interest in nurturing children. Even without an evolutionary analysis, it’s obvious that most parents want grandchildren eventually and take great pride and joy in having them. Don’t they have a say?
And what about the child? These gay activists want the child to be just like them. But how does that benefit the child? For an evolutionist, the true interests of the child are clear: Heterosexuality and femininity are far more likely to result in children and well-cared for children at that. But even apart from that, there is no reason to suppose that lesbians are happier than heterosexual women.
The attitudes of the gay activists here are yet another example of how far the culture of the left has departed sanity and common sense. For these people, lesbianism has a value for its own sake, independent of the interests and desires of the parents, and independent of the interests of the child.
As a biologically oriented psychologist, I am not surprised that research indicates the importance of biological influences on homosexuality. The fact that homosexuals have become pillars of the cultural left is deplorable —and quite unnecessary. Homosexuals have ethnic interests just like everyone else, and they can promote those interests even if they don’t themselves have children. It seems to me that one way for homosexuals to promote their ethnic interests is to acknowledge heterosexual marriage as a specially protected cultural norm — its special status guaranteed because of its critical importance in creating and nurturing children.
And they should be very happy that there is a promising treatment that would allow girls affected with CAH to grow up wanting to be wives, mothers, and grandmothers.
Facing the Future as a Minority
http://memegenerator.net/Sociobiologist
I don’t think that lesbianism has significantly affected the racial demographic in the USA. Lesbian couples do in fact reproduce utilizing sperm from a sperm bank, which allows them to choose the precise characteristics that they seek. This is a healthy form of selective breeding.
The real problem is that the brainiest American women are not reproducing at the rate that they should. It is estimated that 31% of all American females with advanced degrees who are now in their late 50s and early 60s have never reproduced. This loss of hereditary brain power is now apparent in the general population’s test scores.
@TGD: I’d be amazed if the fertility of lesbians approaches the fertility of heterosexual women, even with modern technology. And remember, in this case the lesbians are masculine and have little interest in children. I also doubt that lesbians would be much concerned about having White babies and I suspect that the types of men they would choose for sperm donors would be the sorts idealized by the cultural left — not exactly what we need.
This actually reminds me of a similar situation among deaf people involving Cochlear implants. Implants can cure some deafness. Deaf “activists”, however, don’t see deafness as a condition, they see it as a “culture”, a culture based on a physical defect. So powerful is the message of inclusiveness in our society that some deaf people have let themselves believe that deafness isn’t a disability at all. It’s absurd. They believe that medical science is robbing deaf children of this culture by HEALING them.
As to the article, I do find it interesting that the same group of people (liberal gays) who most likely feel that a parent has every right (obligation?) to abort a child with a physical defect also feel a parent has no right to determine their orientation.
TGD said:
“I don’t think that lesbianism has significantly affected the racial demographic in the USA. Lesbian couples do in fact reproduce utilizing sperm from a sperm bank, which allows them to choose the precise characteristics that they seek. This is a healthy form of selective breeding. ”
I agree that lesbianism hasn’t affected race, but only because homosexuality is an anomaly, and gays who raise children even more so.
No way is being gay natural. It must be some sort of genetic-code defect. If I had a son and he turned out gay – damn! – I’d be well depressed. That worries me. Scientists should spend billions on fixing this problem. I mean, if your kid was in the womb and the Doc said: ” sorry dude, your son’s a Homo!… but we can fix him” YES YES YES, would be my answer.
Remember this story from a few years ago?:
A newborn rat pup in the lab of Dr. Marc Breedlove at Michigan State University, may, oddly enough, hold important clues to what happens in the womb.
Dr. Breedlove says he can take a male rat and make it behave like a female for the rest of its life, and vice versa for a female, just by altering the hormones it’s exposed to at birth. Because rats are born underdeveloped, that’s roughly the same as altering a third-trimester human fetus in the womb. But first, he said, Stahl would need a crash course in rat sex.
Dr. Breedlove explained that male rats, including one he showed Stahl called “Romeo,” will mount any rat that comes their way. In the mating process, the female performs something called lordosis, where she lifts her head and rump.
If Romeo goes after a male, Dr. Breedlove says the male will seem profoundly indifferent.
But Breedlove says he can change all that. He gave a female rat a single shot of the male sex hormone testosterone at birth. Now grown up, she will never perform lordosis.
But a male rat did. He was castrated at birth, depriving him of testosterone.
“So you created a gay rat?” Stahl asked.
“I wouldn’t say that these are gay rats. But I will say that these are genetic male rats who are showing much more feminine behavior,” he explained.
So the answer may be that it’s not genes but hormones.
“That’s exactly the question that we’re all wondering. This business of testosterone having such a profound influence. Does that have some relevance to humans?” Breedlove said.
“And remember, in this case the lesbians are masculine and have little interest in children.”
That just means that they’re “boy” lesbians, not necessarily that they don’t want children. Hook them up with the right “girl” lesbian, and there ya go … Heather has two mommies.
“I also doubt that lesbians would be much concerned about having White babies and I suspect that the types of men they would choose for sperm donors would be the sorts idealized by the cultural left — not exactly what we need.”
Too true.
Anyone who is interested in producing “what we need” might want to look into starting the Repository for Germinal Choice back up. That was the sperm bank William Shockley donated to that was originally supposed to warehouse sperm from Nobelist donors only. Unfortunately, Shockley’s sperm was never used, but it should go without saying that it could be of incalculable value to the White cause to produce a genius at Shockley’s level who is also a fanatic biological racist. In the rapidly approaching technological context, such a one could reshape the world all by himself.
“This is a healthy form of selective breeding.”
I’m not sure that is true as a substantial number won’t be doing it because they want children but as a political statement and the actual children as a political project in gender-neutral parenting or some such psycho-torture.
I say,don’t give our enemies an inch.
Could you(we) find another word than gay?
“The reason for their ire is that there is a promising treatment for the disorder. The problem for the activists is that as a side effect of treatment, the girl would be less likely to be lesbian. Horrors!”
The media has made it cool to be “bent” (as we say in Britain). Even tho any sane, honest person would say this is not natural, the crazy people still believe it’s okay, normal. Is this because unnatural twisted people run our media and decide what’s good and what’s not good, and want to corrupt and confuse us ? Me thinks so.
I’ve heard bent people say: “It’s natural, animals also do their own gender” But I don’t buy that. I think this “disorder” must also effect SOME animals but not all. I’ve had my male-dog for 5 years and he’s well into girl-dogs (if he gets the chance) But he aint ever tried it on with another male-dog. So he aint bent. :)
Dr MacDonald and others – did you all know that congenital adrenal hyperplasia (non-classical form) is an Ashkenazi-specific genetic disorder due to Jewish inbreeding?
“Nonclassical CAH is among the most common genetic disorders, with Ashkenazi Jews having the highest prevalence. In the general population, depending on the ethnic breakdown of a given community, 1-5% may be affected with non-classical CAH. Nonclassical CAH does not progress to classical CAH in affected individuals.” – http://www.nadf.us/diseases/cah.htm
“It is more common among certain ethnic groups, occurring in one in 27 Ashkenazi Jews and one in 40 Hispanics.” – http://www.vosizneias.com/34782/2009/07/09/new-york-hormonal-condition-more-prone-by-ashkenazi-jews-overlooked-in-infertility-patients/
Perhaps this is why such a high percentage of Ashkenazi women are very male-like, with well above average aggressiveness, deep voices, hairiness, acne, oily skin, penchant for intellectuality, etc?
Dr. MacD. wrote:
I must respectfully disagree. Dedicated lesbians tend to be more intelligent than the average American female. They would not want to be impregnated with the sperm of an 85 or 90 IQ African-American or Hispanic male. It is the ultra-liberal heterosexual female who is attracted to such men by dint of personal world view. Fat and stupid white women who spend their time watching MTV where the non-white male is shamelessly idealized 24/7 also go after them.
Below is a quote from a Steve Sailer article concerning sperm donors and the Hollywood feminist crowd.
Some of the earliest gay rights activists specifically stated that the “medicalization” of homosexuality was the primary threat to their cause. What seems obvious – that homosexuality is a hormonal defect with a medical cure – is attacked as “irresponsible” or even “hateful” medicine.
What Jim says above about deafness and resistance to a cure among “deaf culture advocates” is very similar.
A cure for homosexuality is most likely on the horizon due to agricultural science. Bulls that mount other bulls instead of heifers represent an economic loss to farmers, thus curing the behavior has a financial incentive that drives research. Any treatment that will cure or prevent homosexuality among cattle will likely translate at some point to the other mammals, like human beings.
But since there is now the financial interest, it’s likely to happen regardless of political opposition.
And considering that homosexuals are generally oppressed and treated as second class around the world among virtually all cultures – and have a much less change of procreating – you would think that homosexuals would be on the forefront of trying to find a cure.
No such luck of course, given the modern “gay culture” of course.
But for political correctness, wouldn’t queers still be considered mentally ill? If so, why should we expect them to promote the “ethnic interests” KM thinks they have? I’d sooner heed the views of all counterintelligence (save the Brits): fags are not to be trusted.
What I read in a health book written by a doctor: homosexuality is overrepresented in the last child or last couple of children of a woman who has had quite a few kids. (I would say that some woman are so delicate that even one or two children are too much for their particular biological conformation.)
His take on this was that the mother’s body had been so depleted in nutrients that the fetus, by the time the last one or two kids showed up, was not able to develop properly, and in some cases this produced an unusual sexual orientation. Of course, in some later children, the pathology took another form, such as mental retardation or overt physical abnormality. It didn’t necessarily have to be homosexuality.
@Barkingmad: The usual explanation for the later brother effect is that the mother makes anti-bodies to testosterone when she gives birth to a boy; these add up with subsequent births of boys.
For example: http://biology.ucsd.edu/classes/bisp194-1.FA09/Blanchard_2001.pdf
It’s not surprising that some genes or some biological disorder can make a woman more masculine, or a man more feminine. What’s harder to believe is that there is a genetic explanation for leftist gay activists. Also, it seems to me that men who visibly “act gay” do not really behave like women.
“The fact that homosexuals have become pillars of the cultural left is deplorable —and quite unnecessary. Homosexuals have ethnic interests just like everyone else”
It’s likely that most people with homosexual lives but no grievances against traditional society would rather not be seen in the media. Only exhibitionists are comfortable talking about their sex life in public. It’s also true of sex-counselors: if they were normal people, and not sex-maniacs, they would have normal jobs.
The left-wing media like to criticize traditional society and present themselves as advocates and spokesmen for immigrants, workers, teenagers, women, homosexuals. But it’s mostly posturing. They don’t care that they are usually hurting the interests of the people they say they want to help.
I agree that the rhetoric and actions of The Homosexual Lobby are almost always irrational. But why does heterosexual marriage need to be protected from homosexual marriage? Using this kind “protectionist logic” is never a good strategy. It always sows the seeds of discontent. And that’s the problem with the Right today. They take positions that they know are going to alienate entire goups of people (almost always creative, intelligent, and educated people) and then they don’t know how to deal with them in a way that is rational. They’re stuck defending their position with appeals to the Bible or the magical forces the free market or some other nonsense.
“The fact that homosexuals have become pillars of the cultural left is deplorable —and quite unnecessary. Homosexuals have ethnic interests just like everyone else, and they can promote those interests even if they don’t themselves have children. It seems to me that one way for homosexuals to promote their ethnic interests is to acknowledge heterosexual marriage as a specially protected cultural norm — its special status guaranteed because of its critical importance in creating and nurturing children. ”
The late Alisdair Clarke documented this extensively on his blog Aryan Futurism, and I have attempted to carry it on with my own blog.
KMD is quite right; the association of homosexuals [under the artificial "gay" identity] with the Left is historically anomalous and was deliberately manufactured in the 60s to create more aggreived “minorities” as shock troops against The Establishment.
Historically, homosexuals WERE the Establishment, which is why they dominate lists of “Great Men” of the past. The point is, Alexander didn’t swish around in a pink toga and stamp his foot until he could marry his boyfriend “just like the rest of you.”
The real INTERESTS of homosexuals, from Greece to Florence to Granada to pre-WWII Berlin, has been to promote an aristocratic, hierarchical society whose elite they can compirse, rather than either the chains of bourgeois marriage or juvenile plans to “tear the motherfucker down”.
Re Blanchard, mentioned by Admin, above:
“… it is possible that male fetuses
who follow prior male pregnancies do see more androgen.
“That extra androgen may not, however, represent
the cause of homosexuality in later male fetuses
but rather the fetuses’ attempt to resist it. It is possible,
in other words, that male fetuses whose sexual differentiation
is threatened by anti-H-Y antibody attempt
to compensate by producing more testosterone. This
last possibility also suggests a shift in perspective on
the problem posed by homosexuality for evolutionary
biology and evolutionary psychology.
“The correct question might not be why the multiparous mother
starts producing essentially infertile sons, but rather
what prevents her from producing more of them.”
The way I see it, there’s more going on than mere “infertility”. Wanting to pork your own sex goes way beyond an inability to reproduce. So I think it is wrong of Blanchard to suggest that homosexuality is “essentially” infertility. Mother Nature would just make people infertile if she didn’t want more people around without going thru the contortion of men and women behaving in such an unfortunate way.
Mugabe said that homos were not welcome in Zimbabwe, that they were the product of morally degenerate colonial cultures and that such behaviors were not initially present in cultures [i.e., races] indigenous to Zimbabwe. What was it about whiteness that promoted homosexuality?
Mugabe is a fool and a propagandist. Homosexuality was quite common in all primitive tribes until colonialism put a stop to it. I think the days of claiming that one is born straight or gay is soon to pass. It is White European (and maybe Asian) culture that has pushed homosexuality into the corner; now, as we have lost our identity as a people, our purpose for life is gone, and we have become like placid primitives (or the placid super-elites of the Greeks) and homosexuality is again becoming “natural”.
Apparently environment matters: http://www.theonion.com/video/girl-raised-from-birth-by-wolf-blitzer-taken-into,17714
I don’t really buy the ‘ethnic interests’ bit, and I don’t really care about the evolutionary future of mankind (which I will have no involvement in), but I do agree that the Homosexual lobby is definitely part of the loony left and the stuff they say is plain dumb most of the time.
There were gay people in Zimbabwe – they just weren’t open about it.
By their openness, gays are breeding themselves out of existence. The gay gene was allowed to pass on in the past because gays had to enter into marriages and have children. Now that gays are free to be childless and gay, their genes are less likely to continue.
Barkingmad:”What I read in a health book written by a doctor: homosexuality is overrepresented in the last child or last couple of children of a woman who has had quite a few kids. (I would say that some woman are so delicate that even one or two children are too much for their particular biological conformation.) ”
Yes, this is the fraternal birth order effect, and there is a lot of scientific evidence to prove it.
Supposedly if a female has a lot of male children, the males born later – but especially the last male child – have a much higher chance of being a homosexual; the hypothesis is that it is hormonal in cause. – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraternal_birth_order_effect – the statistical effect is significant: “According to several studies, each older brother increases a man’s odds of developing a homosexual sexual orientation by 28%–48%.”
The fraternal birth order effect is supposedly correlated to prenatal hormones: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prenatal_hormones_and_sexual_orientation
Gays and lesbians are also much more likely to be left handed – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Handedness_and_sexual_orientation
@BOMFOG,
It’s more important to preserve society than to get rid of the gays. I think the media and gay activists are encouraging normal people to discover that they are gay!
@ Jack,
“But why does heterosexual marriage need to be protected from homosexual marriage?”
It’s better to encourage white people to have normal lives and have children. They will usually be happier, and society will suffer less. People can live as they please, but there is no reason to say that we approve of everything they do. An official stamp on same sex marriage would not amount to a legal authorization. No authorization is needed. But it would send a message that we think it is a normal thing to do. It would add a lot of confusion into the lives of some people who are too easily influenced by the media. It’s like going into a classroom and asking teenagers if they realize that some of them are probably gay. You can do a lot of damage in that way. It’s better to apply some gentle pressure on everyone to conform to tradition.
Those in the homosexual lobby often say they want nothing more than to be let alone. But, of course, they want more than that. Unable to procreate, they want to intervene in the way the children of heterosexuals are raised. An example is their demand that schoolchildren be brought to believe that same-sex unions are entirely normal — whether heterosexual parents want gender confusion introduced to their small children or not. Hence, the homosexual demand that their unions be declared to be marriages.
TGD says: “The real problem is that the brainiest American women are not reproducing at the rate that they should. It is estimated that 31% of all American females with advanced degrees who are now in their late 50s and early 60s have never reproduced.
I would advise TGD to be cautious about assuming a correlation between intelligence and academic careers.
TGD should consider the numbers of academicians with mediocre intelligence as well as the numbers of extraordinarily intelligent persons who are not attracted (or have no access) to Academia.
I was at a small party once and my friend introduced me by saying, “This is Alexander, my straight friend.” In the struggle for racial survival we have to win the votes and the resources of the homosexuals too. Certainly, as a group they have problems but like many “societies,” whether it be the church, the masons or the gays, the rank and file is more sensible than the leadership. We should at least win them over to the extent that they will have quality White children rather than some modern fad, which, like the Hula Hoop nobody will want as the years roll by.
I think gay marriage is a negative, because it will contribute to young men turning off marriage. That won’t affect young Black men much, because they already have gone off marriage, statistically speaking. But it will affect young Whites.
Young men as part of growing into masculine roles strongly reject anything girly or gay. If it’s women’s work, they don’t want to do it, if it’s homosexual they steer wide of it. There’s nothing wrong with this.
Everybody knows this, and takes account of it. If you want young men to buy your sneakers, you don’t make them pastel pink with glittery hearts and unicorns.
And if we want young men to believe that getting married is a masculine, strong thing for them to do, we need to fix a lot of things that have been put wrong with marriage (like super-expensive and “girly” weddings with no-fault divorce to follow), and we need not to make things worse by any move towards making marriage a gay thing.
By the way, I think whatever we do with this will affect Jews less than other ethnic groups. I base this on a Jewish lesbian friend who was very interested in having kids by artificial insemination, no partner needed, in part because she wanted to pass her Jewishness onto a new generation.
Maybe ethnicities are generally based on psychological insecurities.
In my experience, ethnicity is not the creation of individual insecurities. It’s a strong trans-personal and trans-generational form of identity.
And there’s nothing wrong with that.
What’s wrong and really perverse is creating new, artificial, pseudo-ethnic identities that trap children by preserving preventable handicaps like deafness or Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia.
Though I’m against gay marriage, I think there are a couple of things to remember, just to keep it in perspective:
The vast majority of homosexuals will never get married. Promiscuity has always been a hallmark of homosexuality (hence the pandemic spread of AIDS among gays when the virus first developed.) It’s most likely part of the homosexual “condition”, since sex can’t produce children. Yes, there are certaintly promiscuous heteros…lots of them, but generally speaking, promiscuity and marriage don’t mix.
Even in todays “liberated”, increasingly fatherless society, promiscuity is still a deviation from the heterosexual norm of marriage. Marriage, however, is a deviation from the norm of promiscuity among gays, and our society, as a whole, is moving TOWARDS promiscuity, not away from it.
Yes, there are economic benefits from marriage that will entice some pervs to get married, but that enticement isn’t enough to convince growing numbers of heteros to get married, why would it be any different with pervs? The reality is that are society is moving away from marriage in general, and that’s fundamentally bad.
Gay marriage has been the red herring of talk show hosts, much like the mosque at ground zero or Clinton’s affair w/Monica Lewinski, to get conservatives all riled up about the wrong things. Immigration, stable families and non-interventionist foreign policy issues are of far greater importance.
KM: “Homosexuals have ethnic interests just like everyone else, and they can promote those interests even if they don’t themselves have children.”
The actions of the homosexual lobby here become understandable when interpreted in light of what they expect public policy to be on CAH, and other questions which touch their interest. The public policy that they want to see implemented is, of course, “equality”, first, last, and always. In this context, equality means elevating the sexuality of the abnormal to the same level of respect as the normal. That is the sole focus of their concern; not the family, or racial interests (EGI). For them, those things aren’t even on the list of things they regard as worthy of preservation. More than this, to the extent that they are preserved, their goal of equality, defined as normalizing the abnormal, is made unobtainable. From this standpoint, it makes sense that they would worry that “some doctors might tell parents that a reduced chance of homosexuality is one of the therapy’s benefits.”
Of course, this setting of equality as the major goal to which all other goals must be subordinated is what public policy in the West has been about for many years now. Thus, their advocacy of letting CAH run its course is really about preventing any kind of retreat from the status quo.
If we step back and look at the big picture, regarded properly, the American state is like a machine for producing equality. It has been since its inception, as shown by its most basic founding principle of all men being equal before the law, equally “endowed by their Creator” with inalienable rights. The negro slavery that was a legacy from earlier times should be regarded as an aberration, and was abolished precisely because it conflicted with this vision. Likewise with segregation. “Separate but equal” failed conceptually as soon as it was realized that the mere fact of separation was the basis of the preservation of race, an inequality that would remain ineradicable so long as separation was allowed.
Once again, this inborn and characteristically White fascination with equality is what is leading it inexorably to destroy itself.
Let’s not forget that Jews created the modern “homosexual rights” movement in America. Additionally, the first “homosexual rights” advocate was the Jew-German doctor Magnus Hirschfeld, who also invented the word “racism”, and fled Germany when the National Socialists came to power. One of the famous newsreels of a Nazi book burning is actually a video of Nazi party members burning Hirschfeld’s library.
Indeed.
http://www.google.com/#hl=en&safe=off&q=Magnus+Hirschfeld&aq=f&aqi=g7&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=&pbx=1&fp=668f06e9a3b3966f
Heartening article. Maybe A3P is going to weed out the poofters.
(Warning: homosexuals and other deviants are rampant on the “intellectual” side of WN. Ripe targets for enemy blackmail…but also insidious mutineers when challenged. Proceed, but with decisiveness.)
Homosexuals are part of white culture and should be encouraged to promote our values and interests. Hostility toward homosexuality can be expected, especially in its effeminized forms because it represents “submission” and surrender to another male. Most heterosexaul males should be expected to be naturally abhorred by homosexuality for this reason. Homosexual men should be encouraged to identify with positive forces outside of their sexual orientation in order to be productive citizens and avoid the emptiness that the mindless pursuit of sexual hedonism leads to.
I see ethnic issues and sexual preference issues as totally unrelated, apples vs. oranges so to speak. I think we would have more people, both gay and straight supporting White rights if we didn’t necessarily link these two issues. For many, White Nationalism (or pride) also demands an anti gay agenda. This makes no sense to me.
Q.
Hi there, I find that your case is rather perceptive since it highlights a good deal of accurate data. By the way, was considering regardless of whether you’d adore to interchange web links with my internet portal, as I am looking to generate contacts to extra spear factor and gain ground for my internet space. I don’t mind you laying my world wide web links at the property page, just approving this links on this particular article is over enough. Furthermore, would you be sort ample contact me at my world wide web space if you are keen inside the link exchange, I would really like that. Greatest wishes from me and hope to hear from you shortly!