|
|
Post by ratcliff on Jun 10, 2024 8:57:05 GMT
No it wasn't, you pulled that out of your arse. What see2 is describing is a genetic malfunction whereby a person may exhibit primary sexual characteristics of both sexes, of the opposite sex or of neither. That's a genuine and rare medical condition and not the same thing as transgenderism, however disingenuously you attempt to conflate the two. The point I am making is that human procreation is far from perfect, and so far it appears to be the case that no one has fully mapped the extent of the sex mix in humans. Here is an example of the mix: "Does progesterone affect the male fetus? The present data indicate that exposure of the male fetus in utero to pharmacological concentrations of natural progesterone is able to reduce masculine copulatory behavior of the male progeny." Why haven't you posted the reference you plagiarised this from? It's from a 1987 published article about an earlier French study of mice G. Pointis; M.-T. Latreille; M.O. Richard; P.D. D'Athis; L. Cedard
Developmental Pharmacology and Therapeutics (1987) 10 (5): 385–392. |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Jun 10, 2024 9:57:41 GMT
The point I am making is that human procreation is far from perfect, and so far it appears to be the case that no one has fully mapped the extent of the sex mix in humans. Here is an example of the mix: "Does progesterone affect the male fetus? The present data indicate that exposure of the male fetus in utero to pharmacological concentrations of natural progesterone is able to reduce masculine copulatory behavior of the male progeny." Why haven't you posted the reference you plagiarised this from? It's from a 1987 published article about an earlier French study of mice G. Pointis; M.-T. Latreille; M.O. Richard; P.D. D'Athis; L. Cedard
Developmental Pharmacology and Therapeutics (1987) 10 (5): 385–392.Shove your shitty lie "plagiarized" as far back up as you can get it. My comment was in quotation marks. I got my 2020 information from Google at: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7736841/No mention of mice. But animal orientated, Humans are animals. |
|
|
|
Post by Fairsociety on Jun 10, 2024 10:00:31 GMT
Why haven't you posted the reference you plagiarised this from? It's from a 1987 published article about an earlier French study of mice G. Pointis; M.-T. Latreille; M.O. Richard; P.D. D'Athis; L. Cedard
Developmental Pharmacology and Therapeutics (1987) 10 (5): 385–392.I got my information from Google at: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7736841/LOL... and you have the cheek to criticize posters who use a DM link. |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Jun 10, 2024 10:12:32 GMT
LOL... and you have the cheek to criticize posters who use a DM link. Comparing the Daily Male with a Scientific Research site is just comparing Maily shite with Gold. |
|
|
|
Post by ratcliff on Jun 10, 2024 10:29:23 GMT
Why haven't you posted the reference you plagiarised this from? It's from a 1987 published article about an earlier French study of mice G. Pointis; M.-T. Latreille; M.O. Richard; P.D. D'Athis; L. Cedard
Developmental Pharmacology and Therapeutics (1987) 10 (5): 385–392.Shove your shitty lie "plagiarized" as far back up as you can get it. My comment was in quotation marks. I got my 2020 information from Google at: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7736841/No mention of mice. But animal orientated, Humans are animals. Shitty lie? Dishonesty from you as per Your posted comment was plagiarised from the 1987 article I referenced (I note that you didn't even have the courtesy to reference the subsequent link you now claim to have used) Presenting work or ideas from another source as your own, with or without consent of the original author, by incorporating it into your work without full acknowledgement.You obviously either didn't read it or didn't understand it , it involved mice and sheep experimentation - 90 ewes were used , was the result of a funded scholarship and acknowledges that its conclusions are limited |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Jun 10, 2024 10:37:13 GMT
No it wasn't, you pulled that out of your arse. What see2 is describing is a genetic malfunction whereby a person may exhibit primary sexual characteristics of both sexes, of the opposite sex or of neither. That's a genuine and rare medical condition and not the same thing as transgenderism, however disingenuously you attempt to conflate the two. The point I am making is that human procreation is far from perfect, and so far it appears to be the case that no one has fully mapped the extent of the sex mix in humans. Here is an example of the mix: "Does progesterone affect the male fetus? The present data indicate that exposure of the male fetus in utero to pharmacological concentrations of natural progesterone is able to reduce masculine copulatory behavior of the male progeny." Strawman ..take the extreme cases and use them to construct the norm ,leftie woke cultist bullshit . I think that covers it . |
|
