The third sex (homosexuality), and interrupted embryonic development.
Our DNA architecture defines the portals of consciousness and thus the verv nature of our consciousness. Certainly one of more dominant qualities that defines our consciousness is sexuality. A great deal has already been written about the difference between the male and female outlook, but where does homosexuality fit in?
What happens if an embryo being developed along certain DNA guidelines does not receive proper environmental support and the embryo is forced to develop along a deviated pathway? Such is the case with homosexual development. The term “homosexual” is not really an apt definition, for it defines a being by what they are attracted to: men attracted to men, women attracted to women, instead of defining them by what they actually are on the inside. In reality, homosexuals are multisexual beings. That is, they are one sex on the outside and the opposite sex on the inside. This is not an extremely unusual phenomena, it occurs consistently in all species to between 4 and 7% of the population predominantly on the male side. That’s because all embryos begin as females, those that are destined to become males require precise hormonal input from internal glands and the uterine environment at precise times to become full functioning males.
Anne Moir and David Jessel in their book Brain Sex, published in 1992, describe the process as follows: (pg. 21+)
“Our identity blueprints come in the form of forty six chromosomes, half contributed by the mother, half by the father. The first forty-four team up with one another, forming pairs of chromosomes which determine certain bodily features of the eventual individual, such as color of the eyes, the length and shape of the nose, But the last pair are different.
The mother contributes a ‘X’ chromosome to the egg (the ‘X’ describes the rough shape of the chromosome). If the father’s contribution on fertilization of the egg is another ‘X’ chromosome, the chromosome will –normally- be the formation of a girl baby. If the father’s sperm contains a ‘Y” chromosome, normally a baby boy will be born.
But the genes do not alone do not guarantee the sex of a child. That depends on the intervention, or the absence, of the other factor in sex determination – the hormones. Whatever the genetic makeup of the embryo, the fetus will only develop as a male if male hormones are present, and it will only develop as a female is male hormones are absent. The proof of this has come from studying people who have inherited abnormalities. It is only by looking where development has gone wrong that scientists have been able to build a picture of what happens during normal development. These studies have shown that male hormones are the crucial factor in determining the sex of the child. If a female fetus, genetically XX, is exposed to male hormones, the baby is born looking like a normal male. If a male fetus, genetically XY, is deprived of male hormones, the baby is born looking like a normal female.
In the first weeks in the womb, the tiny fetus isn’t noticeably a miniature girl or miniature boy. It has all the basic equipment, such as vestigial ducts, tracts and so on to put the message across as a male or female. If things go normally, and everything follows the XY blueprint of a boy, the chromosomes will cue the development of the gonads into testes.
Just as the six-week-old fetus wasn’t recognizably male or female in appearance, so the embryonic brain also takes some time before it begins to acquire a specific sexual identity. If the embryo is genetically female, nothing very drastic happens to the basic pattern of the brain. In broad terms, the natural template of the brain seems to be female. In normal girls it will develop naturally along female lines.
In boys it is different. Just as male gender depended on the presence of the male hormone, so a radical intervention is needed to change that naturally female brain structure into a male pattern.
It has always seemed something of a puzzle that nature should put such a high priority on organizing the sexual machinery of the unborn child. After all, its reproductive mechanism isn’t going to come into its own for years to come. The answer is that the formation of sexual equipment in not simply an end in itself. Once formed, the sexual machinery has work to do while the fetus is in the uterus. It produces those crucially important male hormones in the fetus itself. These hormones have work to do – on the unformed brain.
Embryonic boy babies are exposed to a colossal dose of male hormone at the critical time that their brains are beginning to take shape. The male hormones at this stage are four times the level later experienced throughout infancy and boyhood. A vast surge of male hormone occurs at each end of male development: at six weeks after conception when the brain circuitry is taking shape, and at adolescence, when male sexuality comes to fruition.
But, as with the development of the rest of the body, things can go wrong. A male fetus can have enough male hormones to trigger the development of the male sex organs, but these may not be able to produce the additional male hormones to push the brain fully into the male pattern. His brain will ‘stay’ female, so he will be born with a female, or partially female, brain in a male body. In the same way, a female baby may be exposed in the womb to an accidental dose of male hormone – we’ll see later how this can happen – and end up with a male brain in a female body.
Ten years ago (twenty now), most of this was tentative theory. Now, it’s accepted, to a greater or lesser degree, by virtually every brain specialist and neuroscientist. Yet most non-scientists –that is, most people – are unaware of this fundamental fact of life. If most of us do not know that our brains are made differently, it is not surprising that we have difficulty in acknowledging, or understanding, each others differences.”
The authors then go on to explain the scientific data to support these claims and give several specific example case studies that illustrate this phenomenon. They then go to insist that men and women are actually different species in the same family mainly due to the tremendous differences between male and female brain makeup. Another important distinction is that the male brain imprinting process takes place in several sequential stages that target specific stages of psychological development. One theory is that there are four stages of development: First is basic sexual patterning determining if one is a fighter or a nurturer, basically aggressive or passive; second is sexual identity, that is, one’s sexual self image; third is sexual mate preference and the fourth is sexual drive and orgasm orientation. Ideally a female is feminine in all four phases and the male likewise masculine, but this is not always the case. If one, two or three stages are reversed, homosexual orientation usually results, but there are many different ways that this can manifest.
Another factor that can contribute to a hormonal imbalance during pregnancy is, not surprisingly, the condition of the mother. Psychological stress can induce an imbalance in the hormonal environment. This was first observed by Dr. Gunter Dorner in his experiments on rats and then later revealed in humans using scientific statistical analysis. Another contributor is prescription drugs; barbiturates, used widely until the 1980s, act directly on neural tissue development and indirectly through the brain-sexing substances secreted by the male fetus. Drugs prescribed for treatment of diabetes can also affect hormonal balance in the womb and there are probably others.
Two very important lessons can be learned from this scientific investigation. Number one, homosexuality/bisexuality is a natural and unalterable condition, it has nothing to do with will or attitude – it is structural and impossible to change. It can also bestow one with a special gift of approaching reality with both masculine and feminine perspectives. If anything, it should be approached as a perceptual and creative gift and not a social handicap.
The other lesson, guys, is that women weren’t made from the rib of a man; sorry, but it is probably the other way around. The female is the base pattern of humanity and men are a derivative of that base pattern. Despite the (male) propaganda of ages, in the process of creating and designing sexual beings, it's most likely that the creator started out with the female pattern from which the male pattern was derived.
Here’s a possible scenario (as seen from the viewpoint of the creator)
Women are the lifebearers/nurturers, and they need protection
Thus were created the bodyguards, who were basically modified Females…..
Reproductive plumbing was removed, musculature was enhanced,
the brain divided (emotions separated from intellect), desensitized
and aggression/possession/protection qualities were hormonally accentuated.
Thus we have hu-man, a bodyguard with big fists and the urge to use them.
Especially useful when we lived in caves; particularly unnecessary now that this planet has to learn to live in peace