http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthcomment/geoffrey-lean/6418553/Why-boys-are-turning-into-girls.html

Who benefits from this? Ask yourself.

noone. people are dumb as S't when it comes to anything more complex than a radio, and asking them to actually consider what could happen with the chemicals would have taken too long

really? the "who profits" line? that's what you're going to lead off with? anyone that shares a random report and just asks that old chestnut should go sit in the lake for a few hours as punishment. lazy and pompus......

The reptiles and the illuminati!

Amiright? ^^



-----------------
Naaah, the conclusions are flawed. They say that old statistics suggest that it should be 106 boys to 100 girls because that's "nature's way" of coping for the fact that more males will die in accidents , war, and hunting etc.
But now that number is shifting and they blame the chemicals.

Morons. Cretins. Whitlings.

The imbeciles are using the older number as their control norm. Why? Why should it always be set in stone that there will be more men than women? Their statistics do not go back far enough to be that reliable, therefore any conclusions they make from them are as likely to be true as any that could be invented by anyone else. -_-


On the subject of percentages of men to women in birth numbers I've heard of far more reputable studies that were a lot more interesting and in-depth than this forgettable article. One very interesting conclusion was that when times were hard, with a low food supply, it was more likely that women would give birth to one sex rather than the other-(I think it was men in that case), but when times were good, not much strife and food was plentiful, then the other sex was predominant (female babies I think). The reasoning was based on evolutionary theories, genetic studies, diet, history etc.
Not just a few random sensuses, received wisdom, and the good old miscellaneous "bad chemicals"

It would probably be a good thing if alot of the world's collective sperm counts were to drop.

Gender-influencing chemicals, eh? Well, if it means prettier men, I'm all for it. Clearly the one who benefits is me! AHAHAHA. -enthusiastic thumbs-up-

(I just can't take that seriously)

Logically if this is making dicks smaller it should make boobs bigger.
I am not complaining about it.

I am with ozonocean in spirit, except it is the other way around. The chances for a woman to spontaneously have an abortion are slightly higher when the fetus is a boy. Of course these chances go up in times when she is stressed out, as would be when the times are hard. This is because, once it has been aborted, she can get pregnant again next month, as oppossed to the 9 months it would take to carry to term a boy that's probably going to die before he can have his own children anyways. Of course the difference is slim, and it must be a real crisis for it to really matter, but over the generations, yeah, there are more ladies than guys in the world. And the chances are never in favor of males. Not for humans anyways (I assume species where the females do the fighting, like lions, would have a more equal ratio).

Edit: Lions are a bad example, they are mammals. It is the carrying of the fetuses that weighs the balance, not the fighting. For a higher male to female ratio, it must be a species that lays eggs. Some insects DO have more males than females, since each can lay a couple thousand eggs and forget about them.

And here I thought this might actually be a posting leading to a discussion of the role reversals we've been seeing in the past few years, like how it used to be predominantly males who were free to pick and drop partners at will, cheat and/or carry on multiple dating relationships, and how in more recent times, women are becoming the ones more apt to drop partners at will and/or cheat. Instead it's more kyurazy posting.

Of course, I guess that could be related to the numbers thing, but I would think that it would be reversed in that case and the smaller numbered sex would be the one's more apt to drop and pick up relationships quicker. So I suppose they're maybe only linked in ways other than cause effect.

I might also add that being overweight tends to increase estrogen and progesterone levels in the human body. That's why women who have a bit higher BMI ( up to a point obviously. ) tend to have more curves and wider hips in relation to their waist. Those people with higher levels of hormones also tend to have children who share a lot of their traits. And don't you suppose that the same nations eating excessive amounts might be the ones who can afford processed foods that have chemicals present? Not that I'm in anyway saying that guys are developing smaller dicks just because of being overweight, ( although having an extra inch of fat around your member does effectively do that. ) but it's not just chemicals influencing things like that.