Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Sperm Count Zero

gq.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 155 posts

Re: Sperm Count Zero

#141

Post by mclehman »

DoreenMichele wrote: post #135
fit2rule wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

FWIW, I'm a manly-man, and I routinely attract aggression from non-cis folks because I've had kids and enjoy being a Dad. I think this is just par for the course, personally - if people did like having kids and being 'traditional' in their family future, they wouldn't be non-cis...

I've got one word for you: Hypocrisy. I spent 9 months being extremely supportive of a MtF trans youth in crisis who expected and demanded that I be totally accepting of who and what they were. Then they had a cow and shit all over me for mentioning that "pretty boys" weren't my cup of tea and reamed me out about how that's prejudice. So their preferences and predilections must be unquestioningly validated. Mine? Jus…

What was the context for your "pretty boys" comment? Was it referring to MtF individuals or to men not conforming to traditional gender roles RE: their appearance?

Re: Sperm Count Zero

#142

Post by [deleted] »

mclehman wrote: post #141
DoreenMichele wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've got one word for you: Hypocrisy. I spent 9 months being extremely supportive of a MtF trans youth in crisis who expected and demanded that I be totally accepting of who and what they were. Then they had a cow and shit all over me for mentioning that "pretty boys" weren't my cup of tea and reamed me out about how that's prejudice. So their preferences and predilections must be unquestioningly validated. Mine? Jus…

What was the context for your "pretty boys" comment? Was it referring to MtF individuals or to men not conforming to traditional gender roles RE: their appearance?

[deleted]

Re: Sperm Count Zero

#143

Post by DoreenMichele »

mclehman wrote: post #141
DoreenMichele wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've got one word for you: Hypocrisy. I spent 9 months being extremely supportive of a MtF trans youth in crisis who expected and demanded that I be totally accepting of who and what they were. Then they had a cow and shit all over me for mentioning that "pretty boys" weren't my cup of tea and reamed me out about how that's prejudice. So their preferences and predilections must be unquestioningly validated. Mine? Jus…

What was the context for your "pretty boys" comment? Was it referring to MtF individuals or to men not conforming to traditional gender roles RE: their appearance?

Neither.

We were most likely discussing someone who is a member of Hacker News that she wanted to encourage me to marry, never mind that she believed he was married to someone else (according to him at the time, he wasn't married, but he is a family man). So, basically, admitting that I didn't find him repulsive was a good excuse to heap verbal abuse on me. Par for the course for the relationship. There was no means for me to do anything right.

Out of respect for innocent bystanders, such as his children (including one that likely reads Hacker News), I don't want to discuss this any further.

Re: Sperm Count Zero

#144

Post by spraak »

hokkos wrote: post #134
spraak wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It actually doesn't [1] [2]. But if it did, then just avoid both. [1] Clinical studies show no effects of soy protein or isoflavones on reproductive hormones in men: results of a meta-analysis. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19524224 [2] Soybean isoflavone exposure does not have feminizing effects on men: a critical examination of the clinical evidence. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20378106

It actually does, there is a documented event of it happening, but to be fair it is harmless for the majority of the population in resonable consumption : https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18558591 A 60-year-old man was referred to the endocrinology clinic for evaluation of bilateral gynecomastia of 6 months' duration. He reported erectile dysfunction and decreased libido. On further review of systems, he reported…

So in huge quantities it rarely happens... soy is also completely optional and not necessary, so not a big concern. Avoiding animal products is laughably easy without soy.

Re: Sperm Count Zero

#146

Post by Nomentatus »

zxcvvcxz wrote: post #15
Nomentatus wrote: post #14

In mammals generally testosterone levels and photoperiod are very closely linked. It would be surprising if our increasing use (abuse) or artificial light didn't sharply drop our testosterone levels.

Is it that artificial light drops T levels, or is it the lack of sleep? Though admittedly the former often leads to the latter. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/05/110531162142.h...

In mammals generally? Sorry, couldn't resist - in truth your question is good because while "sleep" is repeated endlessly, not just in the news but often by researchers who aren't controlling for photoperiod - that's NOT what the research says. It's light that's key, controlling the master hormone melatonin. Which is also a stunningly efficient antioxidant, of supreme use in taking out the garbage - something not irrelevant to Alzheimer's. If you sleep into the light regularly,long sleeps, your lifespan actually shortens.

Re: Sperm Count Zero

#147

Post by sixstringbudha »

winceschwab wrote: post #137
sixstringbudha wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>HN doesn't take well to people making unsubstantiated assertions. ooooo..scary. Tell something that fits with the hive mind narrative and HN will give you all its love without asking for no citation. (I mean, some one might ask for it, but HN will take care of flagging it and make it disappear). So do all forums where there is an ability for people to down vote stuff.

“The atom bomb works. Fission makes uranium explode.” See how I didn’t need a citation? It’s because the facts are not only well-understood, but a river of citation is ready to flow for you, and you would have to dig for verifiable evidence. You could pull up a youtube video, and watch facts unfold, as real world events from the past. “My pets love me. I know this is true because I see it in them every day.” You know…

Some statements might warrant citations, while some might not. That is your argument, right?

Given! Now, hop along your merry way!

Re: Sperm Count Zero

#148

Post by Chris2048 »

newscracker wrote: post #52
DoreenMichele wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

likely to be met with scoffs of “good riddance” My first thought was that this may also cast light on the rise of the trans rights movement. If men are becoming less male, surely this relates to so many people saying "I'm really a woman trapped in a man's body." or vice versa. This may also help explain why trans people are so often met with open hostility as "freaks" etc. No, I am not defending their mistreatment. B…

> I'm a fairly traditionally feminine woman and spent a couple of decades as a homemaker and full-time mom. I am routinely met with open hostility from self proclaimed trans activists, feminists, etc. > I personally like "manly men" and that's also not a PC thing to admit to. So I will suggest it isn't just men the world is saying "good riddance" to. It's also women in some sense. I think, in this context, we need be…

> we need better and likely newer vocabulary

What about trans-women that want to be called women? Who see being called "trans" or "man" as an insult?

Isn't this the same kind of gate-keeping as the people who insist trans-women are men?

neither side might accept the new vocab precisely because they are a) reinforcing the old concept, or b) reinforcing an inverted version of the old concepts. Neither wish to create a new category, just define the same old ones.

Re: Sperm Count Zero

#149

Post by londons_explore »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #139
jondubois wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> would require some kind of selective pressure Not selective pressure, but lack of it. When you take away selective pressure for a specific trait, organisms become weaker on average in respect to that trait; when a trait loses importance, populations divert their resources to different traits.

For a gene to decay without selective pressure takes a very long time, especially when your population is not on the edge of starvation.

A selective pressure going away is as strong as a selective pressure appearing.

Eg. 100 years ago, 20% of children would die as infants. Imagine all of those children died of a mutation which causes half the usual sperm count, together with a lack of resistance to polio/cholora.

Now that polio/cholora don't exist, all those people survive, and within 3 generations, nearly everyone has at least a grandparent with that 'low sperm count' mutation.

Re: Sperm Count Zero

#150

Post by rbrcurtis »

martinpw wrote: post #64

Worth pointing out this trend is only unambiguously evident in the Western world, identified as U.S., Europe, Australia, and New Zealand. Other parts of the world do not show a statistically significant trend, although the article suggests these data are not good enough to draw strong conclusions.

What's curious about that is if this is solely a first world problem, then it should be easy to compare our sperm counts to that of men in 2nd/3rd world countries. The lack of that data in this article is troubling.
Post reply on HN