Males invade, harm, and use women's bodies on a BIOLOGICAL and CELLULAR level.
For example, did you know that male genes effectively SILENCE female genes, and that sperm carries genetic information designed to override a woman's genetic information and force fetuses to grow larger than they normally would? And that they also inject genetic information designed to prevent the female body from evolving to be able to reproduce asexually?
32 comments
1. The first "point" has at least a tiny basis in reality but dosage control is necessary for life. Only one copy of the growth promoting gene needs to be active and needs to be controlled for proper biological functioning. There are other genes that are silenced during the production of the gamete (sperm have nothing to do with certain genes being silenced in the egg). Some of theses are silenced in the male gamete and different ones are silenced in the female gamete. If interested look up Prader-Willi and Angelman syndromes for more information.
2. I honestly have no idea what where the second statement is coming from although the paternal/maternal imprinting is one of the barriers to asexual reproduction. This is a good thing. Sexual reproduction generates a better diversity of individuals that result in it being unlikely that a disease can just wipe out the entire population among other things.
This just in: biology and reality are misogynistic.
And that they also inject genetic information designed to prevent the female body from evolving to be able to reproduce asexually?
Wow, so men are evil and oppressive down to their very genes. Do you look at a picture of a sperm cell and go on a rant about how evil and oppressive it is?
What are the odds this person also denies being misandrist?
And that they also inject genetic information designed to prevent the female body from evolving to be able to reproduce asexually
How does this even make sense? No mammals can naturally reproduce asexually. Good thing that science has allowed us to create asexual reproduction in mammals, and in theory humans, too.
Oh shit, we can't have that, because some of the scientists who worked on that were men.
And that they also inject genetic information designed to prevent the female body from evolving to be able to reproduce asexually?
But how would females be able to “evolve” that trait without reproducing the “traditional” way first?
Um... what? o_O
...and that sperm carries genetic information designed to override a woman's genetic information and force fetuses to grow larger than they normally would? "
...as opposed to the fetuses created by the introduction of another woman's egg? o_O??
Males invade womans bodies on a biological level ? with permission if thats what you call sex then yes, I agree.
Harm women ? Not really.
Invade on a cellular level ? how does that work exactly ? a man could give a woman a disease I suppose.
Try learning the process of reproduction that covers the way DNA from each parent combines to form the DNA of the offspring.
Female body able to reproduce asexually ? hmmm, sounds wrong to me.
Quite frankly, if you've come to the point of calling the genetic material carried by sperm oppressive, then you've leapt off a cliff of sanity into a deep abyss of idiocy.
Also, this is actually diminishing and trivialising actual oppression of women. You're a joke. A caricature. As if you walked out the mind of a frothing misogynist who thinks feminists want to kill all men.
sperm carries genetic information designed to override a woman's genetic information
And the egg, vice versa. See "interlocus sexual conflict." Actually, the female has more or less won this contest in humans, which is why the Y chromosome is so small.
++"For example, did you know that male genes effectively SILENCE female genes, and that sperm carries genetic information designed to override a woman's genetic information and force fetuses to grow larger than they normally would?"
No shit. How the fuck did you think sexual dimorphism worked? Fucking magic womb pixies flipping a coin?
++"And that they also inject genetic information designed to prevent the female body from evolving to be able to reproduce asexually?"
No. They don't. MILLIONS OF YEARS OF EVOLUTION are to blame for that. You have a problem with that? Take it up with your great^147 grandmother.
Do you know that if a certain enzyme or something is missing at a certain stage of the pregnancy, the embryo will develop as a female, even with XY genes?
You know, it's almost as if both genders influence and depend on each other...
it's interesting that no one is actually engaging with the entirety of the post.
And by interesting, I mean, boring and predictable.
The Top Gear Bolivia Special: Jezza, Captain Slow, and Hamster in the Atacama Desert.
Where nothing organic exists; not even at the cellular level. Richard Hammond was the smallest thing there.
No women there.
...but at the Bolivian border, there was an invasion of a certain man's body; considering where they were ; the phrase 'Bolivian Marching Powder' ring any bells?
Jeremy Clarkson (at border post): 'MY ARSE! ' X3
...meanwhile, Biology Education. Get one.
@eh?
Which part of the post would you say people aren't engaging with? There's the sensationalist introductory line, which is self-explanatory. And then there's three major points in "defense" of it: the gene-masking thing, the "force fetuses to grow larger than they normally would" thing, and the asexual reproduction thing.
I mean, sure, some people have chosen to refute one of those in particular, but among the thread there's pretty good coverage.
Unless there's some hidden part of this that doesn't read like it flunked freshman bio? (Actually, I say this having not taken college bio; I took two terms of physics instead. So sue me.)
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
