Feminizing Effects Of Environmental Toxins
I have much empathy for LGBTs, and if you wish, you may think of me as LGBT as you read this article.
As a curious independent thinker who is super open-minded, super skeptical, and who just goes where the facts take me …. and as one who lives in a universe full of beauty and wonder …. if I were LGBT, I would definitely want to know how I got to be that way.
I find it extremely offensive that the majority among the liberals/left shame LGBTs who are similarly curious independent thinkers who do not conform to their LGBT narrative and agenda.
We will now investigate for ourselves. We will look at history as well as modern science.
A study from 2010 shows that .1 parts per billion of Atrazine (introduced in 1958) is enough to make 10% of male frogs become fully functional female frogs who are able to reproduce with male frogs and lay viable eggs. The other 90% were feminized to varying degrees. This study reproduces the results of an earlier study done before 2000, but which was not allowed to be published.
Here is a quote from the abstract:
The herbicide atrazine is one of the most commonly applied pesticides in the world. As a result, atrazine is the most commonly detected pesticide contaminant of ground, surface, and drinking water. Atrazine is also a potent endocrine disruptor that is active at low, ecologically relevant concentrations. Previous studies showed that atrazine adversely affects amphibian larval development. The present study demonstrates the reproductive consequences of atrazine exposure in adult amphibians. Atrazine-exposed males were both demasculinized (chemically castrated) and completely feminized as adults. Ten percent of the exposed genetic males developed into functional females that copulated with unexposed males and produced viable eggs. Atrazine-exposed males suffered from depressed testosterone, decreased breeding gland size, demasculinized/feminized laryngeal development, suppressed mating behavior, reduced spermatogenesis, and decreased fertility. These data are consistent with effects of atrazine observed in other vertebrate classes. The present findings exemplify the role that atrazine and other endocrine-disrupting pesticides likely play in global amphibian declines.
These frogs were only exposed to .1 parts per billion; whereas, agricultural workers who work with Atrazine have 2400 parts per billion in their urine. That is 24,000 times as much.
Such perversions of nature are not limited to Atrazine or frogs. Here is a TED Talk by Tyrone Hayes and Penelope Chaffer that mentions just a few of the additional chemicals and species.
Atrazine is just one of many such toxins we absorb from our environment, other examples are BPA and pthalates, not just from water, but from foods, plastics, clothes, carpet, furniture, mattresses, pillows, etc. Therefore, given how humans use the same hormones for reproduction that animals do, and given how humans also absorb toxins through our skin, as well as when we eat, drink, and breathe, such environmental toxins are obviously the most probable explanation for the increase in many related conditions such as LGBT, lower testosterone, lower sperm count, and micropenis.
These chemicals cross the placental barrier and are also in breast milk, which is of critical importance because the effects on those who were exposed in the womb, or shortly thereafter, are probably going to be more pronounced than the effects on those exposed only as an adult. For example, male-specific brain structures develop during three windows when an individual is exposed to testosterone. One is as a fetus, and one is shortly after birth. The other is at puberty.
Consider that American women today have 30,000 to 50,000 chemicals in their bodies that their grandparents did not have. This would explain why the effects on each generation seems more pronounced than the previous generation.
Each individual’s genes are likely to react in different ways, so not everyone will be affected in the same way, and given that we did not evolve with these toxins, we may also be affected in ways never before observed. Richard Dawkins says much the same thing:
When we talk about a gene for anything, whether it’s homosexuality or anything else, we don’t necessarily mean that the gene inevitably has that effect. A gene only has the effect that it does in the right environment. So it could be that a gene that has the effect of causing a male to be homosexual in the present environment—in our present technological environment—civilized environment—would not have had that effect in a different [past] environment.
In addition to modern science, there is also historical evidence.
The dominant narrative is that, among Greeks and Romans, LGBT was not only common and accepted, but was regarded as an even higher form of love. They are each portrayed as an LGBT paradise. Their art is cited as evidence. A major claim is that 600 examples of homosexuality are celebrated on Grecian urns. The claim is therefore, that LGBT is not a product of modern endocrine disruptors because it was common and celebrated among the Greeks and Romans.
The reality is that those 600 Grecian urns are among 80,000 total, but more importantly, 570 are not depicting homosexuality, and for all of the remaining 30, it is still a stretch, and some even depict homosexuality in a negative light. For example, Saturn was depicted a small percentage of the time in a homosexual act, but Saturn, like most of the gods, was also known to be a wild, horrible, hideous, and perverted trickster. Others among the 30 are heterosexual, but are said to be homosexual because the subjects are engaging in doggy style or anal sex. The remaining were some act other than sex, like one man killing another with a sword, or a man having sex with an animal. There is much additional evidence that ancient Greece and Rome were not hospitable to LGBT–nor was it as common as claimed.
Suppose some evidence were produced in the future that proved LGBT was as common among Greeks and Romans as it is now. That would still not prove that modern endocrine disruptors are not causing LGBT because Greeks and Romans were also exposed to endocrine disruptors, such as lead, mercury, and arsenic.
There is one more argument claiming that LGBT is natural, which is that genes causing .1% – 1% of the population to be LGBT in the environments in which humans evolved during the last 10,000 years are mutations that survived because they increased social cohesion in a uniquely human way, which is just barely plausible. (They actually say 10% – 50%, but that is ludicrous because such genes would die out immediately.) However, such celebrants of LGBT also say that LGBT is natural because a wide range of animals do it, but that would require a common gay ancestor over 200 million years ago, and would thus be unrelated to recent human evolution and human social cohesion.
To be sure, anyone whose health and psychology has been affected should be treated with as much dignity and respect as anyone else, but the media actually celebrate and promote LGBT in spite of the clear evidence suggesting that many (perhaps all) could be the victims of environmental toxins that have turned them into something nature never intended.
Like the media, the entire establishment ignores the facts, and celebrates and promotes LGBT instead.
One who has been radically transformed by environmental toxins has a right to be very angry at the source and at those who try to cover up the cause and who also perpetuate and promote such victimization.
How is it the party that cares the most about LGBT individuals is also the party that tries the hardest to cover up their victimization by environmental toxins?
The perpetrators are not just one party though. The entire establishment is guilty, and must be held accountable.
In the end, it’s the things you didn’t do you’ll regret most.