Message from @Why Tea
Discord ID: 418080092728721408
@here so find me something reputable that points to the transfer of haploid DNA into women from men's sperm.
Then bonus points on how it might possibly impact behavior measurably.
I wish that kind of analysis was allowed
This is all fetal. All of it. There is no reference to haploid DNA (sperm). Granted, it does note male, and Y-chromosome, which is interesting in that we might then conclude that the DNA could be present if your mate had had *one or more children* (or *pregnancies*, perhaps??) with a former partner. Nothing in this seems to suggest other-than-fetal DNA.
@Sean So if we're going forward with the hypothesis, it looks like the concern is how many pregnancies by other guys. Not how many times she's had a load of semen deposited.
Not necessarily, the first study found male DNA present in 10% of nulligravid female cadavers, indicating that the origin is not always a result of fetal tissue displacement
This study also only analyzed samples derived from deceased female PBMCs. I wish there were studies that examined living female reproductive tissue in this way and was grouped by number of sexual partners. That would be interesting, but verifying those numbers could be challenging and women would not be willing to participate
Yeah. (Should check/correlate against number of partners, and would they participate...)
Oh, I see now in the first study. I missed that the first time re: no sons.
Interesting that it's higher in the group that had abortions.
The conclusion still lists the possible cause there of intercourse as one of five possibilities. I think it is still not conclusive that it's via plain intercourse. The study doesn't state that strongly.
I advise caution here and not jumping to conclusions.
Most important statement: `Besides known pregnancies, other **possible** sources of male microchimerism include unrecognized spontaneous abortion, vanished male twin, an older brother transferred by the maternal circulation, or sexual intercourse. Male microchimerism was significantly more frequent and levels were higher in women with induced abortion than in women with other pregnancy histories. Further studies are needed to determine specific origins of male microchimerism in women.` Emphasis mine. This is in no way conclusive.
Especially given the rather large pile of existing data showing a fetal source.
`About 20 to 30% of women with confirmed pregnancies bleed during the first 20 wk of pregnancy; half of these women spontaneously abort. Thus, incidence of spontaneous abortion is about 10 to 15% in confirmed pregnancies. `
So it could come from there, or from unrecognized pregnancies that spontaneously abort, for example.
Consider the 8% for the groups only *known* to have daughters. For any group, incidence of spontaneous abortion is ~10% to 15%, which neatly encompasses the 8% for those with only daughters brought to term.
This gives a mechanism which obviates any need to include sexual intercourse alone in the causality.
I wasn't contending that male microchimerism is conclusively a result of male haploid DNA ingestion. It's difficult to determine origin, especially in deceased subjects without comparing sequences found to their sons, sexual partners, etc. I think it's interesting that ostensibly, only the Chinese are studying this.
Yeah I know you weren't contending it. It just seems that the discussion on the Alt-Right / MGTOW sphere is horribly focused on that.
When from the above we see that it's far from demonstrated conclusively.
Thanks for grabbing those studies man this shit is fascinating.
We need better ones still! Always more questions to answer
Totally agreement there, brother. No stone unturned in the search for knowledge and truth.
I won't stop you guys from having this discussion in the book of the month discussion channel, since no one really uses it except during voice chats anyway, however, there might be a better channel for this.
If you have interesting links, feel free to post them in the appropriate channel, and use that category's general for discussion
That way it will be easier to find later
lol oops.
Why Tea derails things again.
Looks like Science->General makes sense.
Nah, you didn't derail anything, because nothing was going on here anyway. Like I said, I don't know if anyone even uses this channel outside voice chats. It's just that another channel might be more convenient from a categorization standpoint.
@Why Tea You're a failure, goy. Give up now and submit to one of (((our))) many communist opportunities for disenfranchised white people! Call now! Our (((operators))) are standing by!
Oy vey!
Oklahoma City’s Millwood public school district has two pledges of
allegiance, the familiar one to the American flag, and one to Garvey’s flag. The
latter pledge, written by the founder of Kwanzaa, Maulana Ron Karenga (born
Ronald Everett), goes like this:
We pledge allegiance to the red, black and green
Our flag, the symbol of our eternal struggle, and to the land we must obtain
One nation of Black people, with one God for us all
Totally united in the struggle for Black Love, Black Freedom, and Black Determination.
The NAACP grades companies strictly on what they do for blacks: number of
blacks hired, level of charity to black organizations, number of black-owned
suppliers, etc. Any company that does not disclose this information gets a failing
grade. At the 2006 national convention, NAACP president Bruce Gordon blasted
the Target chain of retailers. “They didn’t even care to respond to our survey,” he
said. “Stay out of their stores.”
When the black owners of Community Bank of Lawndale in Chicago sold it
to Asian-American-owned International Bank, customers and former
shareholders demanded that regulators maintain black ownership because the
bank served a mostly-black neighborhood. As Rev. Marvin Hunter, leader of the
protest explained somewhat confusingly, “this is not a race issue. This is an
economic issue. We don’t believe other people can look out for the interests of
black people.”
The assumption that culture follows biology is at the root of the official black
view of cross-racial adoption. In 1972, the National Association of Black Social
Workers—the one that holds exclusively black conferences—officially declared
that adoption of blacks by whites was “genocide.” It withdrew the charge of
genocide in 1994 when Congress passed the Multiethnic Placement Act,
forbidding agencies that receive federal assistance from denying adoptions for
racial reasons, but it still opposed adoption by whites, asserting that “black
children in white homes are cut off from the healthy development of themselves
as black people.”118 In 2008, it tried to overturn the 1994 law, insisting that
“color consciousness—not ‘color blindness’—should help to shape policy
development.”119 The unspoken rule within adoption agencies is still to try to
place children with adoptive parents of the same race.