Lesbians has also certain look when they get older (30+). A little bit lizardy one. Why?
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (38)
sorted by:
Why are Asian people, generally, shorter?
https://journals.lww.com/jpgn/fulltext/2015/01000/arsenic_in_rice__a_cause_for_concern.28.aspx
Rice readily stores arsenic. Couple that with a diet short on red meat, and the result is a shorter population.
Adaptability then sways genetic superiority of those who can handle arsenic better and the society itself tailors to support a shorter people, which pushes tall people out due to accessibility issues.
Follow this staple for over a dozen generations, and the result is short Asians.
How can you weaponize this?
Well, instead of arsenic causing shortness, what about soy beans containing phytoestrogen causing widespread gender dysphoria?
https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/soy/
How much of a public school's lunch menu include soy?
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/agricultural-and-biological-sciences/textured-vegetable-protein
https://www.usaemergencysupply.com/information-center/all-about/all-about-textured-vegetable-protein
And then there's Atrazine turning the frogs gay...
We have been in a chemical war over the fate of our children for at least a century now.
We've been treated like cattle, given injections and chemicals in order to manipulate our genome like dog breeders work to shrink and pacify dogs.
The prevalence of gay people is a chemical issue.
Get rid of the chemicals, end the hormone therapy, and peoples' urges concerning mixed chemical messaging will stabilize. The genetic damage is done, however, so it's not like we can force Asians to grow taller after centuries of arsenic poisoning. It's gonna take a few generations to weed out those who bear a predisposition to homosexuality when exposed to these vile chemicals.
Let's consider that maybe there is a gene that determines predisposition towards homosexual tendencies.
Homosexuality would be recessive by nature. It will filter out naturally if not artificially promoted, as adherent homosexuals cannot pass on their recessive genes if they don't have babies. Two men cannot have babies. Two women cannot have babies. They cannot pass on the recessive homosexual gene, if one should exist. It is counter-productive to reproduction to be homosexual, and so no population seeking growth would ever benefit from its prevalence.
Good point on the bisexual angle.
If we were to assume that bisexuals have only one of the recessive gene from their parent, then they would continue to permeate the population.
Even so, if we consider homosexuals are those who get two of the recessive gene, they still would not carry on their genes.
That forces the gene to always remain a minority population of a bisexual parent category who would potentially be unaware of the gene they carry.
Would such a recessive trait persist? Why are other recessive traits, such as gingers, a dying breed, when their trait doesn't result in an anti-reproductive state?
Regarding double recessive genes not passing on: What about sperm donors/banks? Could keep that sort in the pool, even if not at high numbers. Just a thought. 🤔
The problem with that specific example isn't that there are less white people, there are actually more white people now than at any point in history. Rather, what's happened is that people in third world nations, mostly in Africa, have had population explosions.
A lower percentage doesn't always equate to a lower number. It can also, as is the case here, indicate that it just means another specific percentage of whatever your measuring is growing at a faster rate for that specific period of time.