<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_11_14_2023219</id>
	<title>Environmental Chemicals Are Feminizing Boys</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1258204320000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>pickens writes <i>"Denmark has unveiled official research showing that two-year-old children are at risk from a bewildering array of gender-bending chemicals in such everyday items as waterproof clothes, rubber boots, bed linen, food, sunscreen lotion, and moisturizing cream. A picture is emerging of ubiquitous <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2009/nov/06/health-eu">chemical contamination driving down sperm counts and feminizing male children</a> all over the developed world. Research at Rotterdam's Erasmus University found that boys whose mothers were exposed to PCBs and dioxins were more likely to play with dolls and tea sets and dress up in female clothes. 'The amounts that two-year-olds absorb from the [preservatives] parabens propylparaben and butylparaben can constitute a risk for <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oestrogen">oestrogen-like disruptions of the endocrine system</a>,' says the report. The contamination may also offer a clue to a mysterious shift in the sex of babies. Normally 106 boys are born for every 100 girls: it is thought to be nature's way of making up for the fact that men were more likely to be killed hunting or in conflict. But the <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthcomment/geoffrey-lean/6418553/Why-boys-are-turning-into-girls.html">proportion of females is rising</a>. 'Both the public and wildlife are inadequately protected from harm, as regulation is based on looking at exposure to each substance in isolation, and yet it is now proven beyond doubt that hormone disrupting chemicals can act together to cause effects even when each by itself would not,' says Gwynne Lyons, director of Chem Trust."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>pickens writes " Denmark has unveiled official research showing that two-year-old children are at risk from a bewildering array of gender-bending chemicals in such everyday items as waterproof clothes , rubber boots , bed linen , food , sunscreen lotion , and moisturizing cream .
A picture is emerging of ubiquitous chemical contamination driving down sperm counts and feminizing male children all over the developed world .
Research at Rotterdam 's Erasmus University found that boys whose mothers were exposed to PCBs and dioxins were more likely to play with dolls and tea sets and dress up in female clothes .
'The amounts that two-year-olds absorb from the [ preservatives ] parabens propylparaben and butylparaben can constitute a risk for oestrogen-like disruptions of the endocrine system, ' says the report .
The contamination may also offer a clue to a mysterious shift in the sex of babies .
Normally 106 boys are born for every 100 girls : it is thought to be nature 's way of making up for the fact that men were more likely to be killed hunting or in conflict .
But the proportion of females is rising .
'Both the public and wildlife are inadequately protected from harm , as regulation is based on looking at exposure to each substance in isolation , and yet it is now proven beyond doubt that hormone disrupting chemicals can act together to cause effects even when each by itself would not, ' says Gwynne Lyons , director of Chem Trust .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>pickens writes "Denmark has unveiled official research showing that two-year-old children are at risk from a bewildering array of gender-bending chemicals in such everyday items as waterproof clothes, rubber boots, bed linen, food, sunscreen lotion, and moisturizing cream.
A picture is emerging of ubiquitous chemical contamination driving down sperm counts and feminizing male children all over the developed world.
Research at Rotterdam's Erasmus University found that boys whose mothers were exposed to PCBs and dioxins were more likely to play with dolls and tea sets and dress up in female clothes.
'The amounts that two-year-olds absorb from the [preservatives] parabens propylparaben and butylparaben can constitute a risk for oestrogen-like disruptions of the endocrine system,' says the report.
The contamination may also offer a clue to a mysterious shift in the sex of babies.
Normally 106 boys are born for every 100 girls: it is thought to be nature's way of making up for the fact that men were more likely to be killed hunting or in conflict.
But the proportion of females is rising.
'Both the public and wildlife are inadequately protected from harm, as regulation is based on looking at exposure to each substance in isolation, and yet it is now proven beyond doubt that hormone disrupting chemicals can act together to cause effects even when each by itself would not,' says Gwynne Lyons, director of Chem Trust.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105924</id>
	<title>Re:It's the chemicals!? Bollox to that!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258303740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Mmm.... I'm tempted to say you're full of shit.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Mmm.... I 'm tempted to say you 're full of shit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mmm.... I'm tempted to say you're full of shit.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105178</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30106468</id>
	<title>Re:It's the chemicals!? Bollox to that!</title>
	<author>Hasai</author>
	<datestamp>1258307880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr></p><div class="quote"><p>....When you hear the word 'manly' what are your first thoughts, I'd like to know what<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/.'s reaction to the word is?</p></div><p>Engineering.</p><p>But hey; that's just me.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>....When you hear the word 'manly ' what are your first thoughts , I 'd like to know what / .
's reaction to the word is ? Engineering.But hey ; that 's just me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> ....When you hear the word 'manly' what are your first thoughts, I'd like to know what /.
's reaction to the word is?Engineering.But hey; that's just me.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105344</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30107008</id>
	<title>I call "fake science" on this.</title>
	<author>Nekomusume</author>
	<datestamp>1258312200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"more likely to play with dolls and tea sets and dress up in female clothes."</p><p>The toy/game/clothing preferences of children are culturally, not biologically, driven. Corolation != Causation.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" more likely to play with dolls and tea sets and dress up in female clothes .
" The toy/game/clothing preferences of children are culturally , not biologically , driven .
Corolation ! = Causation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"more likely to play with dolls and tea sets and dress up in female clothes.
"The toy/game/clothing preferences of children are culturally, not biologically, driven.
Corolation != Causation.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105378</id>
	<title>Re:Dolls and tea sets?</title>
	<author>ShooterNeo</author>
	<datestamp>1258296840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's a neat trick, isn't it?  Yes, it is biology : somehow the neural net on a male 'prefers' the action figures while the neural net on a female 'prefers' the doll set.  There's no known way to override this : it has been tried.</p><p>Mother nature is a pretty brilliant hardware designer, most of the time.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's a neat trick , is n't it ?
Yes , it is biology : somehow the neural net on a male 'prefers ' the action figures while the neural net on a female 'prefers ' the doll set .
There 's no known way to override this : it has been tried.Mother nature is a pretty brilliant hardware designer , most of the time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's a neat trick, isn't it?
Yes, it is biology : somehow the neural net on a male 'prefers' the action figures while the neural net on a female 'prefers' the doll set.
There's no known way to override this : it has been tried.Mother nature is a pretty brilliant hardware designer, most of the time.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105210</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105934</id>
	<title>Re:It's the chemicals!? Bollox to that!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258303860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My first thoughts on hearing someone descrived as 'Manly' are: Stupid, shallow, boastful and prone to drinking to excess.</p><p>No, not very encouraging, is it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My first thoughts on hearing someone descrived as 'Manly ' are : Stupid , shallow , boastful and prone to drinking to excess.No , not very encouraging , is it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My first thoughts on hearing someone descrived as 'Manly' are: Stupid, shallow, boastful and prone to drinking to excess.No, not very encouraging, is it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105344</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105192</id>
	<title>So "Peak Oil"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258294920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>and our "lessening" use of petroleum products look like a way to drive down the numbers of fags since those chemicals won't be as available, hence, they won't be affecting little kids. Yeah!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>and our " lessening " use of petroleum products look like a way to drive down the numbers of fags since those chemicals wo n't be as available , hence , they wo n't be affecting little kids .
Yeah !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>and our "lessening" use of petroleum products look like a way to drive down the numbers of fags since those chemicals won't be as available, hence, they won't be affecting little kids.
Yeah!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105626</id>
	<title>any ties to the organic cosmetics industry?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258298820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The only reason why I know this whole industry even exists is because a friend of mine will regularly spend between 800 and 1500 EUR on products made by an organic cosmetics company. They sell sell ridicolously overpriced products to people who are willing to pay for them. I don't remember the name of the company, except that it was based in the UK. </p><p>I remembered this whole thing because she sent me a study made into the effects of parabens (found in most cosmetics), but when I looked up the author, she was employed by the very same company that makes these organic creams. I even went on pubmeb to look for further studies but I couldn't find any that even looked into the topic. (I did find some that did studies on rats though.)</p><p>

I'm not saying that Chem Trust actually has any links to the whole organic industry, but it was the first thing that struck my mind as i read this: they finally made it into the open.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The only reason why I know this whole industry even exists is because a friend of mine will regularly spend between 800 and 1500 EUR on products made by an organic cosmetics company .
They sell sell ridicolously overpriced products to people who are willing to pay for them .
I do n't remember the name of the company , except that it was based in the UK .
I remembered this whole thing because she sent me a study made into the effects of parabens ( found in most cosmetics ) , but when I looked up the author , she was employed by the very same company that makes these organic creams .
I even went on pubmeb to look for further studies but I could n't find any that even looked into the topic .
( I did find some that did studies on rats though .
) I 'm not saying that Chem Trust actually has any links to the whole organic industry , but it was the first thing that struck my mind as i read this : they finally made it into the open .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The only reason why I know this whole industry even exists is because a friend of mine will regularly spend between 800 and 1500 EUR on products made by an organic cosmetics company.
They sell sell ridicolously overpriced products to people who are willing to pay for them.
I don't remember the name of the company, except that it was based in the UK.
I remembered this whole thing because she sent me a study made into the effects of parabens (found in most cosmetics), but when I looked up the author, she was employed by the very same company that makes these organic creams.
I even went on pubmeb to look for further studies but I couldn't find any that even looked into the topic.
(I did find some that did studies on rats though.
)

I'm not saying that Chem Trust actually has any links to the whole organic industry, but it was the first thing that struck my mind as i read this: they finally made it into the open.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105148</id>
	<title>Solution</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258294560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>All Danish mothers should be required by law to watch 2 hours of Chuck Norris per day during pregnancy.</htmltext>
<tokenext>All Danish mothers should be required by law to watch 2 hours of Chuck Norris per day during pregnancy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All Danish mothers should be required by law to watch 2 hours of Chuck Norris per day during pregnancy.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30108234</id>
	<title>Re:It's the chemicals!? Bollox to that!</title>
	<author>thecabinet</author>
	<datestamp>1258275660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How else are you supposed to learn when to walk it off, and when to rub some dirt on it?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How else are you supposed to learn when to walk it off , and when to rub some dirt on it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How else are you supposed to learn when to walk it off, and when to rub some dirt on it?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105568</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30111506</id>
	<title>Re:It's the chemicals!? Bollox to that!</title>
	<author>dfghjk</author>
	<datestamp>1258301100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Are you suggesting those "factors" are effecting 2 year old boys?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Are you suggesting those " factors " are effecting 2 year old boys ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are you suggesting those "factors" are effecting 2 year old boys?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105178</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105462</id>
	<title>Old news is so exciting</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258297560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>blah blah, and more polar bears exhibit hermaphroditic features, and there's a higher percentage of Florida alligators that are female, and girls are hitting puberty earlier these days, and, and, and....</p><p>Talk about a slow news day.   What's next, an article about how Oracle is buying Sun ?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>blah blah , and more polar bears exhibit hermaphroditic features , and there 's a higher percentage of Florida alligators that are female , and girls are hitting puberty earlier these days , and , and , and....Talk about a slow news day .
What 's next , an article about how Oracle is buying Sun ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>blah blah, and more polar bears exhibit hermaphroditic features, and there's a higher percentage of Florida alligators that are female, and girls are hitting puberty earlier these days, and, and, and....Talk about a slow news day.
What's next, an article about how Oracle is buying Sun ?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30106312</id>
	<title>Re:what about chemicals that are masculinizing gir</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258306800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>TFA mentions that the ratio of newborn boys to girls is decreasing. That's the bigger picture.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>TFA mentions that the ratio of newborn boys to girls is decreasing .
That 's the bigger picture .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>TFA mentions that the ratio of newborn boys to girls is decreasing.
That's the bigger picture.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105696</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105508</id>
	<title>Re:Is it such a bad thing?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258297800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There is no reason for this post to be moderated to "-1 Troll". It's a perfectly reasonable thought.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is no reason for this post to be moderated to " -1 Troll " .
It 's a perfectly reasonable thought .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is no reason for this post to be moderated to "-1 Troll".
It's a perfectly reasonable thought.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105366</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105680</id>
	<title>China Balance</title>
	<author>Nerdfest</author>
	<datestamp>1258299360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>This will be interesting in how it plays out with the excess number of males in China because of the 'one child policy'. If the gender transition occurs in China because of chemical pollution, and becomes more accepted, it could stave off world war three. If it doesn't, the larger number of available females in other countries could encourage emigration or war. Hopefully the pollution gets stopped before any of these longer term effects have a chance.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This will be interesting in how it plays out with the excess number of males in China because of the 'one child policy' .
If the gender transition occurs in China because of chemical pollution , and becomes more accepted , it could stave off world war three .
If it does n't , the larger number of available females in other countries could encourage emigration or war .
Hopefully the pollution gets stopped before any of these longer term effects have a chance .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This will be interesting in how it plays out with the excess number of males in China because of the 'one child policy'.
If the gender transition occurs in China because of chemical pollution, and becomes more accepted, it could stave off world war three.
If it doesn't, the larger number of available females in other countries could encourage emigration or war.
Hopefully the pollution gets stopped before any of these longer term effects have a chance.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105498</id>
	<title>Dolls, FUCK that</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258297740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You now have boys wearing MAKE-UP, etc.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You now have boys wearing MAKE-UP , etc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You now have boys wearing MAKE-UP, etc.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105312</id>
	<title>Batman?</title>
	<author>saxoholic</author>
	<datestamp>1258296180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>and yet it is now proven beyond doubt that hormone disrupting chemicals can act together to cause effects even when each by itself would not</p></div></blockquote><p> This plot sounds awfully familiar. Are they taking their research from Tim Burton's "Batman" movie?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>and yet it is now proven beyond doubt that hormone disrupting chemicals can act together to cause effects even when each by itself would not This plot sounds awfully familiar .
Are they taking their research from Tim Burton 's " Batman " movie ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>and yet it is now proven beyond doubt that hormone disrupting chemicals can act together to cause effects even when each by itself would not This plot sounds awfully familiar.
Are they taking their research from Tim Burton's "Batman" movie?
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30107434</id>
	<title>Re:It's the chemicals!? Bollox to that!</title>
	<author>izomiac</author>
	<datestamp>1258314420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>There's also the idea that in early human society the men were the hunters and the women the gatherers.  Our sexual difference (physically and mentally) aid those roles, although it's difficult to say whether the chicken or the egg came first here.  Plus, women generally breast fed their children until about age five, or when she gave birth again.  Gathering is generally safer, children can help, and the women could stop to breast feed if necessary, so it's pretty clear why women were the favored child rearers.  OTOH, hunter-gather societies only worked ~20 hours a week, so for the rest of the time either parent could help.</htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's also the idea that in early human society the men were the hunters and the women the gatherers .
Our sexual difference ( physically and mentally ) aid those roles , although it 's difficult to say whether the chicken or the egg came first here .
Plus , women generally breast fed their children until about age five , or when she gave birth again .
Gathering is generally safer , children can help , and the women could stop to breast feed if necessary , so it 's pretty clear why women were the favored child rearers .
OTOH , hunter-gather societies only worked ~ 20 hours a week , so for the rest of the time either parent could help .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's also the idea that in early human society the men were the hunters and the women the gatherers.
Our sexual difference (physically and mentally) aid those roles, although it's difficult to say whether the chicken or the egg came first here.
Plus, women generally breast fed their children until about age five, or when she gave birth again.
Gathering is generally safer, children can help, and the women could stop to breast feed if necessary, so it's pretty clear why women were the favored child rearers.
OTOH, hunter-gather societies only worked ~20 hours a week, so for the rest of the time either parent could help.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105702</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105790</id>
	<title>Re:Dolls and tea sets?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258302420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Who cares about all that.  There is finally an explanation for liberalism.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Who cares about all that .
There is finally an explanation for liberalism .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Who cares about all that.
There is finally an explanation for liberalism.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105210</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30108252</id>
	<title>Re:Mixed up: Biological Gender vs. Feminization</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258275720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>This article does not make sense.</p><p>Biological gender (dictated by the presence of an Y vs. X chromosome) is irrevocably determined at the moment a spermium merges with an egg, excluding very rare cases of extra chromosomes etc. External pollution by endocrine disruptor chemicals plays no role in this.</p><p>Exhibition of female traits in biological males is a completely different story, and there is increasing evidence that this may be linked to certain classes of chemicals.</p><p>However, I am not aware of any studies which link these chemicals to decreased viability of Y-sperm, which could be a reason for the decline of male births. The number of biological males feminized to a degree that they pass and spend their lifes as females, and is however far too low to account for this change.</p></div><p>Ah... such a simple world you live in.  One baby has a Y, and it's male, and the other has an X, and it's female.</p><p>Actually, it's the SRY (sex determining gene) on the Y chromosome that initiates... I said INITIATES sexual distinction in males.  Without this gene, the germ cell line "stripe" turns into ovaries.  If there is a mutation in this gene, you will get an XY female with ovaries.  If this gene is present and there are no mutations in this gene, then the germ cell line "stripe" becomes testicles.</p><p>The testicles produce androgen.  Androgen drives the external development of the genitalia.  If there is insufficient androgens, or insufficient response to androgens then the scrotalabial folds become labia, and the clitoris/penis precursor becomes a clitoris.  If there are sufficient androgens, and response, the scrotalabial folds fuse into a scrotum, and the clitoris/penis precursor becomes a penis.  The development of the external genitalia can also vary anywhere along a continuum between the two.</p><p>Separately, the testicles produce Anti-muellerian hormones, which prevent the development of the muellerian ducts, namely, the upper vagina, cervix, uterus, and fallopian tubes.  If there is insufficient AMH, or insufficient response, the fetus will develop such organs regardless of the genetic makeup of the child, regardless of the external appearance of the genitalia.  YES, there are MEN with UTERUSES, if they're AMH resistant.</p><p>Now... notice that none of this depends upon estrogen levels.  That's because the mother floods the bodies of all children with estrogens.  However, it's heavily dependent upon hormones that are produced in the testicles.  There a number of chemicals that block androgens, and these result in birth defects, which is why you get in ads for things like Rogaine "pregnant women should never even TOUCH these pills."</p><p>There a hojillion different ways to define "biological sex" and none of them are conclusive, and none of them are guaranteed.  There are women with XY, and men with XX (and they were born that way, and assigned their sex by doctors), there are women with high androgen levels (5-alpha-reductase deficiency) and men with low androgen levels, there are women with testicles, and men with ovaries, there are women without uteruses, and men with uteruses.  The only thing left to define men from women biologically, is external genitalia... and that can be surgically altered.</p><p>So, seriously... you don't know anything... I hope this short lesson on sexual distinction in humans helps you out.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This article does not make sense.Biological gender ( dictated by the presence of an Y vs. X chromosome ) is irrevocably determined at the moment a spermium merges with an egg , excluding very rare cases of extra chromosomes etc .
External pollution by endocrine disruptor chemicals plays no role in this.Exhibition of female traits in biological males is a completely different story , and there is increasing evidence that this may be linked to certain classes of chemicals.However , I am not aware of any studies which link these chemicals to decreased viability of Y-sperm , which could be a reason for the decline of male births .
The number of biological males feminized to a degree that they pass and spend their lifes as females , and is however far too low to account for this change.Ah... such a simple world you live in .
One baby has a Y , and it 's male , and the other has an X , and it 's female.Actually , it 's the SRY ( sex determining gene ) on the Y chromosome that initiates... I said INITIATES sexual distinction in males .
Without this gene , the germ cell line " stripe " turns into ovaries .
If there is a mutation in this gene , you will get an XY female with ovaries .
If this gene is present and there are no mutations in this gene , then the germ cell line " stripe " becomes testicles.The testicles produce androgen .
Androgen drives the external development of the genitalia .
If there is insufficient androgens , or insufficient response to androgens then the scrotalabial folds become labia , and the clitoris/penis precursor becomes a clitoris .
If there are sufficient androgens , and response , the scrotalabial folds fuse into a scrotum , and the clitoris/penis precursor becomes a penis .
The development of the external genitalia can also vary anywhere along a continuum between the two.Separately , the testicles produce Anti-muellerian hormones , which prevent the development of the muellerian ducts , namely , the upper vagina , cervix , uterus , and fallopian tubes .
If there is insufficient AMH , or insufficient response , the fetus will develop such organs regardless of the genetic makeup of the child , regardless of the external appearance of the genitalia .
YES , there are MEN with UTERUSES , if they 're AMH resistant.Now... notice that none of this depends upon estrogen levels .
That 's because the mother floods the bodies of all children with estrogens .
However , it 's heavily dependent upon hormones that are produced in the testicles .
There a number of chemicals that block androgens , and these result in birth defects , which is why you get in ads for things like Rogaine " pregnant women should never even TOUCH these pills .
" There a hojillion different ways to define " biological sex " and none of them are conclusive , and none of them are guaranteed .
There are women with XY , and men with XX ( and they were born that way , and assigned their sex by doctors ) , there are women with high androgen levels ( 5-alpha-reductase deficiency ) and men with low androgen levels , there are women with testicles , and men with ovaries , there are women without uteruses , and men with uteruses .
The only thing left to define men from women biologically , is external genitalia... and that can be surgically altered.So , seriously... you do n't know anything... I hope this short lesson on sexual distinction in humans helps you out .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This article does not make sense.Biological gender (dictated by the presence of an Y vs. X chromosome) is irrevocably determined at the moment a spermium merges with an egg, excluding very rare cases of extra chromosomes etc.
External pollution by endocrine disruptor chemicals plays no role in this.Exhibition of female traits in biological males is a completely different story, and there is increasing evidence that this may be linked to certain classes of chemicals.However, I am not aware of any studies which link these chemicals to decreased viability of Y-sperm, which could be a reason for the decline of male births.
The number of biological males feminized to a degree that they pass and spend their lifes as females, and is however far too low to account for this change.Ah... such a simple world you live in.
One baby has a Y, and it's male, and the other has an X, and it's female.Actually, it's the SRY (sex determining gene) on the Y chromosome that initiates... I said INITIATES sexual distinction in males.
Without this gene, the germ cell line "stripe" turns into ovaries.
If there is a mutation in this gene, you will get an XY female with ovaries.
If this gene is present and there are no mutations in this gene, then the germ cell line "stripe" becomes testicles.The testicles produce androgen.
Androgen drives the external development of the genitalia.
If there is insufficient androgens, or insufficient response to androgens then the scrotalabial folds become labia, and the clitoris/penis precursor becomes a clitoris.
If there are sufficient androgens, and response, the scrotalabial folds fuse into a scrotum, and the clitoris/penis precursor becomes a penis.
The development of the external genitalia can also vary anywhere along a continuum between the two.Separately, the testicles produce Anti-muellerian hormones, which prevent the development of the muellerian ducts, namely, the upper vagina, cervix, uterus, and fallopian tubes.
If there is insufficient AMH, or insufficient response, the fetus will develop such organs regardless of the genetic makeup of the child, regardless of the external appearance of the genitalia.
YES, there are MEN with UTERUSES, if they're AMH resistant.Now... notice that none of this depends upon estrogen levels.
That's because the mother floods the bodies of all children with estrogens.
However, it's heavily dependent upon hormones that are produced in the testicles.
There a number of chemicals that block androgens, and these result in birth defects, which is why you get in ads for things like Rogaine "pregnant women should never even TOUCH these pills.
"There a hojillion different ways to define "biological sex" and none of them are conclusive, and none of them are guaranteed.
There are women with XY, and men with XX (and they were born that way, and assigned their sex by doctors), there are women with high androgen levels (5-alpha-reductase deficiency) and men with low androgen levels, there are women with testicles, and men with ovaries, there are women without uteruses, and men with uteruses.
The only thing left to define men from women biologically, is external genitalia... and that can be surgically altered.So, seriously... you don't know anything... I hope this short lesson on sexual distinction in humans helps you out.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105510</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105882</id>
	<title>Re:Dolls and tea sets?</title>
	<author>digitig</author>
	<datestamp>1258303440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>It probably has a cultural element, but there seems to be a biological element too. Female babies are more likely to fixate on faces, male babies more likely to fixate on mechanical mobiles, from pretty much the first time they open their eyes. Women's linguistic skills vary with the menstrual cycle, and the linguistic skills of pre-op transexuals receiving hormone treatment tend to shift in the direction associated with the intended change. Men who have been given certain a female hormone have been found to be better at interpreting emotion in facial expressions than a control group. Dolls and tea-sets are the cultural manifestations of genuine biological differerences.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It probably has a cultural element , but there seems to be a biological element too .
Female babies are more likely to fixate on faces , male babies more likely to fixate on mechanical mobiles , from pretty much the first time they open their eyes .
Women 's linguistic skills vary with the menstrual cycle , and the linguistic skills of pre-op transexuals receiving hormone treatment tend to shift in the direction associated with the intended change .
Men who have been given certain a female hormone have been found to be better at interpreting emotion in facial expressions than a control group .
Dolls and tea-sets are the cultural manifestations of genuine biological differerences .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It probably has a cultural element, but there seems to be a biological element too.
Female babies are more likely to fixate on faces, male babies more likely to fixate on mechanical mobiles, from pretty much the first time they open their eyes.
Women's linguistic skills vary with the menstrual cycle, and the linguistic skills of pre-op transexuals receiving hormone treatment tend to shift in the direction associated with the intended change.
Men who have been given certain a female hormone have been found to be better at interpreting emotion in facial expressions than a control group.
Dolls and tea-sets are the cultural manifestations of genuine biological differerences.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105210</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30107182</id>
	<title>Choice of occupations</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258313160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The choice of one's occupation can either aggravate or mitigate environmental feminization. A lot of you in technology fields are exposed to much more feminizing chemicals than someone in a more rural occupation.</p><p>For example, I'm a lumberjack, and I'm okay.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The choice of one 's occupation can either aggravate or mitigate environmental feminization .
A lot of you in technology fields are exposed to much more feminizing chemicals than someone in a more rural occupation.For example , I 'm a lumberjack , and I 'm okay .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The choice of one's occupation can either aggravate or mitigate environmental feminization.
A lot of you in technology fields are exposed to much more feminizing chemicals than someone in a more rural occupation.For example, I'm a lumberjack, and I'm okay.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30106366</id>
	<title>Re:It's the chemicals!? Bollox to that!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258307160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Agree!</p><p>The Politically Correct Media tosses out role models like John Wayne and replaces him with girly-men.</p><p>Add the treating of 'hyperactivity' with legalized meth.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Agree ! The Politically Correct Media tosses out role models like John Wayne and replaces him with girly-men.Add the treating of 'hyperactivity ' with legalized meth .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Agree!The Politically Correct Media tosses out role models like John Wayne and replaces him with girly-men.Add the treating of 'hyperactivity' with legalized meth.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105178</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30106742</id>
	<title>Re:It's the chemicals!? Bollox to that!</title>
	<author>w3woody</author>
	<datestamp>1258309980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Perhaps the problem is not manly role models in general, but the current set of (sorry, pathetic) role models that are present on TV? I mean, the number of people who have posted here about the stereotypical male as a fat slob laying about on the couch watching sports in a stained wife-beater while yelling at their spouse to bring them more beer seems to outnumber those who talk about heroic and selfless masculine figures by a long stretch.</p><p>The ideal of a military hero as a masculine role model is not the angry guy who kills people, but the selfless act of a man who seeks to protect the tribe through doing grisly but necessary duty without thinking of himself. Baseball players and football players are role models only in so far as we can see ourselves in them: the local hero who came from nothing and made good. Captains of (local) industry used to fill that role as well: the guy who came from the backwaters of Arkansas and with an idea went from abject poverty to build an international corporation--but our society is always suspicious of the damage such captains do. It's why we turn to sports instead.</p><p>Sports itself is also supposed to be a model of society--which is why sports is so highly valued. You are supposed to learn to play by well established rules, compete graciously, win by striving to improve yourself, and lose with dignity.</p><p>Unfortunately today we have dismantled the idea of the protector who selflessly gives himself or even his life to protect the tribe--instead, the protector is the problem. We've also dismantled sports as an ideal of society: everyone wins, no-one loses, it's only showing up that counts--and so we change the rules to destroy competition rather than use losing and competing as teachable moments.</p><p>So no wonder you hate manly role models. They've been spit upon and destroyed: there is nothing left to honor. It strikes me that at this rate, we're one generation away from the majority of people celebrating Memorial Day by going to a military cemetery and throwing rotten vegetables at the grave markers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Perhaps the problem is not manly role models in general , but the current set of ( sorry , pathetic ) role models that are present on TV ?
I mean , the number of people who have posted here about the stereotypical male as a fat slob laying about on the couch watching sports in a stained wife-beater while yelling at their spouse to bring them more beer seems to outnumber those who talk about heroic and selfless masculine figures by a long stretch.The ideal of a military hero as a masculine role model is not the angry guy who kills people , but the selfless act of a man who seeks to protect the tribe through doing grisly but necessary duty without thinking of himself .
Baseball players and football players are role models only in so far as we can see ourselves in them : the local hero who came from nothing and made good .
Captains of ( local ) industry used to fill that role as well : the guy who came from the backwaters of Arkansas and with an idea went from abject poverty to build an international corporation--but our society is always suspicious of the damage such captains do .
It 's why we turn to sports instead.Sports itself is also supposed to be a model of society--which is why sports is so highly valued .
You are supposed to learn to play by well established rules , compete graciously , win by striving to improve yourself , and lose with dignity.Unfortunately today we have dismantled the idea of the protector who selflessly gives himself or even his life to protect the tribe--instead , the protector is the problem .
We 've also dismantled sports as an ideal of society : everyone wins , no-one loses , it 's only showing up that counts--and so we change the rules to destroy competition rather than use losing and competing as teachable moments.So no wonder you hate manly role models .
They 've been spit upon and destroyed : there is nothing left to honor .
It strikes me that at this rate , we 're one generation away from the majority of people celebrating Memorial Day by going to a military cemetery and throwing rotten vegetables at the grave markers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Perhaps the problem is not manly role models in general, but the current set of (sorry, pathetic) role models that are present on TV?
I mean, the number of people who have posted here about the stereotypical male as a fat slob laying about on the couch watching sports in a stained wife-beater while yelling at their spouse to bring them more beer seems to outnumber those who talk about heroic and selfless masculine figures by a long stretch.The ideal of a military hero as a masculine role model is not the angry guy who kills people, but the selfless act of a man who seeks to protect the tribe through doing grisly but necessary duty without thinking of himself.
Baseball players and football players are role models only in so far as we can see ourselves in them: the local hero who came from nothing and made good.
Captains of (local) industry used to fill that role as well: the guy who came from the backwaters of Arkansas and with an idea went from abject poverty to build an international corporation--but our society is always suspicious of the damage such captains do.
It's why we turn to sports instead.Sports itself is also supposed to be a model of society--which is why sports is so highly valued.
You are supposed to learn to play by well established rules, compete graciously, win by striving to improve yourself, and lose with dignity.Unfortunately today we have dismantled the idea of the protector who selflessly gives himself or even his life to protect the tribe--instead, the protector is the problem.
We've also dismantled sports as an ideal of society: everyone wins, no-one loses, it's only showing up that counts--and so we change the rules to destroy competition rather than use losing and competing as teachable moments.So no wonder you hate manly role models.
They've been spit upon and destroyed: there is nothing left to honor.
It strikes me that at this rate, we're one generation away from the majority of people celebrating Memorial Day by going to a military cemetery and throwing rotten vegetables at the grave markers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105344</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30106352</id>
	<title>Re:It's the chemicals!? Bollox to that!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258307040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>You could also argue there are other gender differences that make women more effective at caring for children that aren't just the result of socialization. I don't have a link handy, but I recall reading some research about how women (as a group) are better able to discern emotions by looking at the faces of other people.</p></div></blockquote><p>What makes you so sure that's not the result of socialization?</p><p>Just saying.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You could also argue there are other gender differences that make women more effective at caring for children that are n't just the result of socialization .
I do n't have a link handy , but I recall reading some research about how women ( as a group ) are better able to discern emotions by looking at the faces of other people.What makes you so sure that 's not the result of socialization ? Just saying .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You could also argue there are other gender differences that make women more effective at caring for children that aren't just the result of socialization.
I don't have a link handy, but I recall reading some research about how women (as a group) are better able to discern emotions by looking at the faces of other people.What makes you so sure that's not the result of socialization?Just saying.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105702</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30106206</id>
	<title>Chemical Estrogens Cause PMS</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258306140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Chemical Estrogens, xenoestrogens, can also cause an array of female diseases such as PMS, endometriosis, cramps, breast cancer, endometrial cancer, ovarian cysts, magnesium deficiency (chocolate craving [chocolate contains magnesium]), Vitamin B deficiency (neuropathy, restlesslegsyndrome), decreased thyroid receptor sensitivity (hypothyroidism with normal thryoid hormone levels) with ensuing weight gain and hair loss.</p><p>Read about it here:</p><p>http://www.goodbyepms.com/xeno.htm</p><p>It is standard procedure to give cattle synthetic estrogen to increase rate of growth, increase fat marbling, and increase water retention (meat more tender).  Cattle are routinely given PMS.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Chemical Estrogens , xenoestrogens , can also cause an array of female diseases such as PMS , endometriosis , cramps , breast cancer , endometrial cancer , ovarian cysts , magnesium deficiency ( chocolate craving [ chocolate contains magnesium ] ) , Vitamin B deficiency ( neuropathy , restlesslegsyndrome ) , decreased thyroid receptor sensitivity ( hypothyroidism with normal thryoid hormone levels ) with ensuing weight gain and hair loss.Read about it here : http : //www.goodbyepms.com/xeno.htmIt is standard procedure to give cattle synthetic estrogen to increase rate of growth , increase fat marbling , and increase water retention ( meat more tender ) .
Cattle are routinely given PMS .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Chemical Estrogens, xenoestrogens, can also cause an array of female diseases such as PMS, endometriosis, cramps, breast cancer, endometrial cancer, ovarian cysts, magnesium deficiency (chocolate craving [chocolate contains magnesium]), Vitamin B deficiency (neuropathy, restlesslegsyndrome), decreased thyroid receptor sensitivity (hypothyroidism with normal thryoid hormone levels) with ensuing weight gain and hair loss.Read about it here:http://www.goodbyepms.com/xeno.htmIt is standard procedure to give cattle synthetic estrogen to increase rate of growth, increase fat marbling, and increase water retention (meat more tender).
Cattle are routinely given PMS.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105446</id>
	<title>A bonus for men</title>
	<author>thetoadwarrior</author>
	<datestamp>1258297380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>More women mean they'll have to lower their standards and accept any old shit we care to do thanks to the laws of supply and demand. I foresee a generation coming up where women will be back in the kitchen where they belong.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:P</htmltext>
<tokenext>More women mean they 'll have to lower their standards and accept any old shit we care to do thanks to the laws of supply and demand .
I foresee a generation coming up where women will be back in the kitchen where they belong .
: P</tokentext>
<sentencetext>More women mean they'll have to lower their standards and accept any old shit we care to do thanks to the laws of supply and demand.
I foresee a generation coming up where women will be back in the kitchen where they belong.
:P</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105184</id>
	<title>The solution is obvious.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258294860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'll come to your house and rub my dick on your kid's face; he'll be fucking cheerleaders in no time.  And if you call right now, I'll do two kids for the price of one.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'll come to your house and rub my dick on your kid 's face ; he 'll be fucking cheerleaders in no time .
And if you call right now , I 'll do two kids for the price of one .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'll come to your house and rub my dick on your kid's face; he'll be fucking cheerleaders in no time.
And if you call right now, I'll do two kids for the price of one.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30106070</id>
	<title>Re:Transsexualism</title>
	<author>hitmark</author>
	<datestamp>1258304880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>i cant help wonder if the suicide attempt comes from trying to fit into a world that reacts pretty much like a "uncanny valley" ones you look like one gender, but behave like a different one.</p><p>this may also be why homosexuality is such a "hot" topic.</p><p>i guess we humans prefer our lives to work along the lines of "walks like a duck, quacks like a duck"...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>i cant help wonder if the suicide attempt comes from trying to fit into a world that reacts pretty much like a " uncanny valley " ones you look like one gender , but behave like a different one.this may also be why homosexuality is such a " hot " topic.i guess we humans prefer our lives to work along the lines of " walks like a duck , quacks like a duck " .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>i cant help wonder if the suicide attempt comes from trying to fit into a world that reacts pretty much like a "uncanny valley" ones you look like one gender, but behave like a different one.this may also be why homosexuality is such a "hot" topic.i guess we humans prefer our lives to work along the lines of "walks like a duck, quacks like a duck"...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105274</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30107812</id>
	<title>Junk Science</title>
	<author>tthomas48</author>
	<datestamp>1258316820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Considering that a lot of literature for parents is focused on encouraging more nurturing in boys, I find the idea that they would base research on how boys play as "feminization" as completely ridiculous.</p><p>Let me know when they find out something about physical changes. Blaming the results of parenting on chemicals is ridiculous.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Considering that a lot of literature for parents is focused on encouraging more nurturing in boys , I find the idea that they would base research on how boys play as " feminization " as completely ridiculous.Let me know when they find out something about physical changes .
Blaming the results of parenting on chemicals is ridiculous .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Considering that a lot of literature for parents is focused on encouraging more nurturing in boys, I find the idea that they would base research on how boys play as "feminization" as completely ridiculous.Let me know when they find out something about physical changes.
Blaming the results of parenting on chemicals is ridiculous.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30106308</id>
	<title>Re:Mixed up: Biological Gender vs. Feminization</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258306800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It seems that the exact mechanism is not entirely clear (though some <a href="http://joe.endocrinology-journals.org/cgi/content/full/198/1/3" title="endocrinol...urnals.org">prominent hypotheses</a> [endocrinol...urnals.org] have been advanced), but there is no <a href="http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S014067360002290X" title="elsevier.com">shortage</a> [elsevier.com] of <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2566153/" title="nih.gov">studies</a> [nih.gov] that <a href="http://docs.google.com/gview?a=v&amp;q=cache:dc93dQucUxAJ:joh.med.uoeh-u.ac.jp/pdf/E42/E42\_3\_08.pdf+sex+ratio+changes+chemical&amp;hl=en&amp;pid=bl&amp;srcid=ADGEESg1mH\_QlxwthE4IVDrIi9zed-hFJnr7Cm50VWCyEhymx1Qg1se9FjV7s8IF8TTDK3mCnBJGoisTZcQnTKm7Vnb9MSlbFCfp7GrSuZ1TmCmhE\_QtlzMGlwbtLDAuzi5ydrzOJDAf&amp;sig=AFQjCNG55YhDNG642VVhCfTHHZIXmQcI\_w" title="google.com">show</a> [google.com] gender ratio changes in populations exposed to particular chemicals.</p><p>I vaguely recall seeing evidence that some chemicals do actually have a debilitating effect on sperm carrying the Y chromosome but other possibilities include fewer Y sperm being produced and Y embryos being less likely to implant successfully or more likely to miscarry.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It seems that the exact mechanism is not entirely clear ( though some prominent hypotheses [ endocrinol...urnals.org ] have been advanced ) , but there is no shortage [ elsevier.com ] of studies [ nih.gov ] that show [ google.com ] gender ratio changes in populations exposed to particular chemicals.I vaguely recall seeing evidence that some chemicals do actually have a debilitating effect on sperm carrying the Y chromosome but other possibilities include fewer Y sperm being produced and Y embryos being less likely to implant successfully or more likely to miscarry .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It seems that the exact mechanism is not entirely clear (though some prominent hypotheses [endocrinol...urnals.org] have been advanced), but there is no shortage [elsevier.com] of studies [nih.gov] that show [google.com] gender ratio changes in populations exposed to particular chemicals.I vaguely recall seeing evidence that some chemicals do actually have a debilitating effect on sperm carrying the Y chromosome but other possibilities include fewer Y sperm being produced and Y embryos being less likely to implant successfully or more likely to miscarry.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105510</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30106524</id>
	<title>Consider the up side</title>
	<author>ClosedSource</author>
	<datestamp>1258308360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In the future today's geeks will score higher on the Chuck Norris scale by comparison to younger non-geek males.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In the future today 's geeks will score higher on the Chuck Norris scale by comparison to younger non-geek males .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In the future today's geeks will score higher on the Chuck Norris scale by comparison to younger non-geek males.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30108028</id>
	<title>Re:It's not the chemicals, it's the media</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258317720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>IMHO, the media is mostly to blame for this. Next time you're bored, start counting how many commercials and sitcoms on TV (and even movies) portray the husband/boyfriend as a complete neanderthal moron and the wife/girlfriend as a level-headed rocket scientist. And can anyone remember when TLC had stuff worth watching? Now you are told what not to wear, that gay men know what women want in a straight guy, that it's okay to have eight or more ankle-biters and yet still have a completely dysfunctional family.</p></div></blockquote><p>I am glad that I am not the only one who has observed this.</p><p>I cannot even watch the show "Everybody Loves Raymond" it is so demeaning to men. Absolutely disgusting, it is not at all funny, it is indoctrination. It is not funny to watch abuse, regardless of who is being abused, yet a whole generation is laughing at it. Very sad.</p><p>Here is another one for you (in a very different way): "At the end of my Rope" - that show about dog training where they guy comes in and analyses why you cannot control your dog? Well I have the answer for about 90\% of the cases. (and many I have observed personally among friends and family). There is no longer a dominant individual in the family, there is no leader, so the dog by its nature will assume the role. It is almost funny that people cannot see it. But really it is sad, as on that show the solution in most cases (though not stated outright) is to make the woman the family leader. Then the dog is OK, but the man is not.</p><p>Then watch the genetic effects of this, selection for large penises, dark skin and small brains. It does not look good for western culture. The Muslim extremists are right. (but their methods unforgivable)</p><p>I'm OK with it though, I dropped out of society many years ago. You can't participate when you can see the truth, but are not allowed to speak it. They want it this way, they are going down in flames and loving it.</p><p>Perhaps it is for the best.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>IMHO , the media is mostly to blame for this .
Next time you 're bored , start counting how many commercials and sitcoms on TV ( and even movies ) portray the husband/boyfriend as a complete neanderthal moron and the wife/girlfriend as a level-headed rocket scientist .
And can anyone remember when TLC had stuff worth watching ?
Now you are told what not to wear , that gay men know what women want in a straight guy , that it 's okay to have eight or more ankle-biters and yet still have a completely dysfunctional family.I am glad that I am not the only one who has observed this.I can not even watch the show " Everybody Loves Raymond " it is so demeaning to men .
Absolutely disgusting , it is not at all funny , it is indoctrination .
It is not funny to watch abuse , regardless of who is being abused , yet a whole generation is laughing at it .
Very sad.Here is another one for you ( in a very different way ) : " At the end of my Rope " - that show about dog training where they guy comes in and analyses why you can not control your dog ?
Well I have the answer for about 90 \ % of the cases .
( and many I have observed personally among friends and family ) .
There is no longer a dominant individual in the family , there is no leader , so the dog by its nature will assume the role .
It is almost funny that people can not see it .
But really it is sad , as on that show the solution in most cases ( though not stated outright ) is to make the woman the family leader .
Then the dog is OK , but the man is not.Then watch the genetic effects of this , selection for large penises , dark skin and small brains .
It does not look good for western culture .
The Muslim extremists are right .
( but their methods unforgivable ) I 'm OK with it though , I dropped out of society many years ago .
You ca n't participate when you can see the truth , but are not allowed to speak it .
They want it this way , they are going down in flames and loving it.Perhaps it is for the best .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>IMHO, the media is mostly to blame for this.
Next time you're bored, start counting how many commercials and sitcoms on TV (and even movies) portray the husband/boyfriend as a complete neanderthal moron and the wife/girlfriend as a level-headed rocket scientist.
And can anyone remember when TLC had stuff worth watching?
Now you are told what not to wear, that gay men know what women want in a straight guy, that it's okay to have eight or more ankle-biters and yet still have a completely dysfunctional family.I am glad that I am not the only one who has observed this.I cannot even watch the show "Everybody Loves Raymond" it is so demeaning to men.
Absolutely disgusting, it is not at all funny, it is indoctrination.
It is not funny to watch abuse, regardless of who is being abused, yet a whole generation is laughing at it.
Very sad.Here is another one for you (in a very different way): "At the end of my Rope" - that show about dog training where they guy comes in and analyses why you cannot control your dog?
Well I have the answer for about 90\% of the cases.
(and many I have observed personally among friends and family).
There is no longer a dominant individual in the family, there is no leader, so the dog by its nature will assume the role.
It is almost funny that people cannot see it.
But really it is sad, as on that show the solution in most cases (though not stated outright) is to make the woman the family leader.
Then the dog is OK, but the man is not.Then watch the genetic effects of this, selection for large penises, dark skin and small brains.
It does not look good for western culture.
The Muslim extremists are right.
(but their methods unforgivable)I'm OK with it though, I dropped out of society many years ago.
You can't participate when you can see the truth, but are not allowed to speak it.
They want it this way, they are going down in flames and loving it.Perhaps it is for the best.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105796</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30106510</id>
	<title>Re:what about chemicals that are masculinizing gir</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258308240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>To be perfectly blunt, there's sexism going on in that these reports focus on just the environmental impact of chemicals on boys, and don't consider the larger picture of chemical impact on children in general.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>Everyone knows that girls are inferior and for boys to be made like girls is the worst thing in the world. Girls should be happy to be made more like boys. I believe Madonna has a song about this.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>To be perfectly blunt , there 's sexism going on in that these reports focus on just the environmental impact of chemicals on boys , and do n't consider the larger picture of chemical impact on children in general .
Everyone knows that girls are inferior and for boys to be made like girls is the worst thing in the world .
Girls should be happy to be made more like boys .
I believe Madonna has a song about this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To be perfectly blunt, there's sexism going on in that these reports focus on just the environmental impact of chemicals on boys, and don't consider the larger picture of chemical impact on children in general.
Everyone knows that girls are inferior and for boys to be made like girls is the worst thing in the world.
Girls should be happy to be made more like boys.
I believe Madonna has a song about this.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105696</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30166572</id>
	<title>Awesome!</title>
	<author>DaVince21</author>
	<datestamp>1258637460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This means more girls to choose from, guys! Too bad it only affects the following generations (unless you're into those wrong things).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This means more girls to choose from , guys !
Too bad it only affects the following generations ( unless you 're into those wrong things ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This means more girls to choose from, guys!
Too bad it only affects the following generations (unless you're into those wrong things).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30106478</id>
	<title>Re:It's the chemicals!? Bollox to that!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258307940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I tend to get better along with intelligent emancipated women than with men. Might have biological reasons, might also just be that many men try to appear manly or learned to behave that way. Anyway, I don't want to behave like an arse just to appear manly and this fighting to be the alpha male looks also stupid in my eyes. Ok, evolutionary processes made us this way, but evolution doesn't follow a plan, it knows no right or wrong, it's just applied mathematics. Also the requirements of modern societies might be in constrast to what was once best to survive as the human species and evolutionary processes are behind in time anyway.<br>Anyway, that all doesn't really matter, because I think there is no master plan for us. I have some ideals, if evolution is finally against them, I couldn't care less, if we die out in a billion years anyway. ^^<br>I have my own mind, I live now, I can be what I like to be and I see man and women primarily as equal persons. If I was a woman, I'd demand the same respect and level of freedom and not being exposed to bullshit as I do it as a man.<br>Trying to behave 'manly' often looks weak in my mind. As a self-confident person I don't have to try to appear manly. I'm just myself and try to do, what I think is right and give a crap about, how 'manly' it looks.</p><p>I don't have a son, but if I had one, I wouldn't teach him how to behave manly, but to be open-minded and respectful to others.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I tend to get better along with intelligent emancipated women than with men .
Might have biological reasons , might also just be that many men try to appear manly or learned to behave that way .
Anyway , I do n't want to behave like an arse just to appear manly and this fighting to be the alpha male looks also stupid in my eyes .
Ok , evolutionary processes made us this way , but evolution does n't follow a plan , it knows no right or wrong , it 's just applied mathematics .
Also the requirements of modern societies might be in constrast to what was once best to survive as the human species and evolutionary processes are behind in time anyway.Anyway , that all does n't really matter , because I think there is no master plan for us .
I have some ideals , if evolution is finally against them , I could n't care less , if we die out in a billion years anyway .
^ ^ I have my own mind , I live now , I can be what I like to be and I see man and women primarily as equal persons .
If I was a woman , I 'd demand the same respect and level of freedom and not being exposed to bullshit as I do it as a man.Trying to behave 'manly ' often looks weak in my mind .
As a self-confident person I do n't have to try to appear manly .
I 'm just myself and try to do , what I think is right and give a crap about , how 'manly ' it looks.I do n't have a son , but if I had one , I would n't teach him how to behave manly , but to be open-minded and respectful to others .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I tend to get better along with intelligent emancipated women than with men.
Might have biological reasons, might also just be that many men try to appear manly or learned to behave that way.
Anyway, I don't want to behave like an arse just to appear manly and this fighting to be the alpha male looks also stupid in my eyes.
Ok, evolutionary processes made us this way, but evolution doesn't follow a plan, it knows no right or wrong, it's just applied mathematics.
Also the requirements of modern societies might be in constrast to what was once best to survive as the human species and evolutionary processes are behind in time anyway.Anyway, that all doesn't really matter, because I think there is no master plan for us.
I have some ideals, if evolution is finally against them, I couldn't care less, if we die out in a billion years anyway.
^^I have my own mind, I live now, I can be what I like to be and I see man and women primarily as equal persons.
If I was a woman, I'd demand the same respect and level of freedom and not being exposed to bullshit as I do it as a man.Trying to behave 'manly' often looks weak in my mind.
As a self-confident person I don't have to try to appear manly.
I'm just myself and try to do, what I think is right and give a crap about, how 'manly' it looks.I don't have a son, but if I had one, I wouldn't teach him how to behave manly, but to be open-minded and respectful to others.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105344</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105592</id>
	<title>Re:It's the chemicals!? Bollox to that!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258298460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>He has, sort of, a point: in the fine article there is not a word about "masculinising" or "neutralising" substances, and there is not a word about controls for social causes or food habits; my take it is another scare aiming to blackmail governments to fund otherwise legitimate research by playing on the fear of being transformed into "wusses" by the "big evil multinationals"<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... fear that is perfectly legitimate, but has less to do with "chemicals" and more with office bureaucracy, procedures and discipline.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>He has , sort of , a point : in the fine article there is not a word about " masculinising " or " neutralising " substances , and there is not a word about controls for social causes or food habits ; my take it is another scare aiming to blackmail governments to fund otherwise legitimate research by playing on the fear of being transformed into " wusses " by the " big evil multinationals " ... fear that is perfectly legitimate , but has less to do with " chemicals " and more with office bureaucracy , procedures and discipline .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He has, sort of, a point: in the fine article there is not a word about "masculinising" or "neutralising" substances, and there is not a word about controls for social causes or food habits; my take it is another scare aiming to blackmail governments to fund otherwise legitimate research by playing on the fear of being transformed into "wusses" by the "big evil multinationals" ... fear that is perfectly legitimate, but has less to do with "chemicals" and more with office bureaucracy, procedures and discipline.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105332</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30106146</id>
	<title>Re:Mixed up: Biological Gender vs. Feminization</title>
	<author>hitmark</author>
	<datestamp>1258305600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>i could have sworn i have read that there is at least one species of rodent out there that have only X chromosomes...</p><p>so technically it would be possible for the Y chromosome to vanish and still have different genders...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>i could have sworn i have read that there is at least one species of rodent out there that have only X chromosomes...so technically it would be possible for the Y chromosome to vanish and still have different genders.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>i could have sworn i have read that there is at least one species of rodent out there that have only X chromosomes...so technically it would be possible for the Y chromosome to vanish and still have different genders...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105510</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30110554</id>
	<title>Ardi fossil suggests evolutionary trend</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258291800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It would appear that one of the defining points of human evolution was where we as a species may have gained bipedalism, better use of our hands, a need to be relatively more clever, the monogamous pair bond and possibly even language.</p><p><a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/01/ardi-oldest-human-skeleto\_n\_306033.html" title="huffingtonpost.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/01/ardi-oldest-human-skeleto\_n\_306033.html</a> [huffingtonpost.com]</p><p>This suggests in effect that the moment our species ancestors diverged from the other apes and chimpanzees was when, through circumstances and mating preferences, it became the case that the dominant alpha males of the tribes were no longer the individuals within our species that got to breed.</p><p>One could argue then that having excessively male characteristics is a throwback.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It would appear that one of the defining points of human evolution was where we as a species may have gained bipedalism , better use of our hands , a need to be relatively more clever , the monogamous pair bond and possibly even language.http : //www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/01/ardi-oldest-human-skeleto \ _n \ _306033.html [ huffingtonpost.com ] This suggests in effect that the moment our species ancestors diverged from the other apes and chimpanzees was when , through circumstances and mating preferences , it became the case that the dominant alpha males of the tribes were no longer the individuals within our species that got to breed.One could argue then that having excessively male characteristics is a throwback .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It would appear that one of the defining points of human evolution was where we as a species may have gained bipedalism, better use of our hands, a need to be relatively more clever, the monogamous pair bond and possibly even language.http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/01/ardi-oldest-human-skeleto\_n\_306033.html [huffingtonpost.com]This suggests in effect that the moment our species ancestors diverged from the other apes and chimpanzees was when, through circumstances and mating preferences, it became the case that the dominant alpha males of the tribes were no longer the individuals within our species that got to breed.One could argue then that having excessively male characteristics is a throwback.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30106770</id>
	<title>fine linens &amp; moisturizing cream</title>
	<author>Fume</author>
	<datestamp>1258310220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>really?  fine linens &amp; moisturizing cream are feminizing our young men?  they had to do research to figure that out? really?</htmltext>
<tokenext>really ?
fine linens &amp; moisturizing cream are feminizing our young men ?
they had to do research to figure that out ?
really ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>really?
fine linens &amp; moisturizing cream are feminizing our young men?
they had to do research to figure that out?
really?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30106850</id>
	<title>boys + harmful chemicals =</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258310760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>girls</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>girls</tokentext>
<sentencetext>girls</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105706</id>
	<title>Re:Gender ratios are not a problem</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258299600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Good luck getting torn into pieces as women fight over your testicles.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Good luck getting torn into pieces as women fight over your testicles .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Good luck getting torn into pieces as women fight over your testicles.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105298</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105672</id>
	<title>Re:Is it such a bad thing?</title>
	<author>emilper</author>
	<datestamp>1258299300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>so, Mr. or Mrs. AC, who is going to protect the crops from wild pigs ?</p><p>When the boys were marching on Champs Elisees on their way to impale the boys marching on Unter den Linden on bayonets, there were a lot of girls cheering them on<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... my bet was they went marching because they knew that was their only hope of getting laid (when they came back just before Christmas), not because they liked to run in the mud, to be shot at with high caliber bullets, and to  bash heads.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>so , Mr. or Mrs. AC , who is going to protect the crops from wild pigs ? When the boys were marching on Champs Elisees on their way to impale the boys marching on Unter den Linden on bayonets , there were a lot of girls cheering them on ... my bet was they went marching because they knew that was their only hope of getting laid ( when they came back just before Christmas ) , not because they liked to run in the mud , to be shot at with high caliber bullets , and to bash heads .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>so, Mr. or Mrs. AC, who is going to protect the crops from wild pigs ?When the boys were marching on Champs Elisees on their way to impale the boys marching on Unter den Linden on bayonets, there were a lot of girls cheering them on ... my bet was they went marching because they knew that was their only hope of getting laid (when they came back just before Christmas), not because they liked to run in the mud, to be shot at with high caliber bullets, and to  bash heads.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105366</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105226</id>
	<title>Re:Dolls and tea sets?</title>
	<author>p0rnographer</author>
	<datestamp>1258295220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>For the last time, they aren't dolls, they're action figures!!</htmltext>
<tokenext>For the last time , they are n't dolls , they 're action figures !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For the last time, they aren't dolls, they're action figures!
!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105210</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30106816</id>
	<title>Nature still at work?</title>
	<author>orlanz</author>
	<datestamp>1258310580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I didnt' RTFA, but:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Normally 106 boys are born for every 100 girls: it is thought to be nature's way of making up for the fact that men were more likely to be killed hunting or in conflict.</p></div><p>Ummm, since we no longer do that, and pregnancy is a one-to-many male to female relationship, maybe nature is going to make 100 males and 150 females?  Or 200??  A guy could hope....</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I didnt ' RTFA , but : Normally 106 boys are born for every 100 girls : it is thought to be nature 's way of making up for the fact that men were more likely to be killed hunting or in conflict.Ummm , since we no longer do that , and pregnancy is a one-to-many male to female relationship , maybe nature is going to make 100 males and 150 females ?
Or 200 ? ?
A guy could hope... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I didnt' RTFA, but:Normally 106 boys are born for every 100 girls: it is thought to be nature's way of making up for the fact that men were more likely to be killed hunting or in conflict.Ummm, since we no longer do that, and pregnancy is a one-to-many male to female relationship, maybe nature is going to make 100 males and 150 females?
Or 200??
A guy could hope....
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30108460</id>
	<title>Does anybody remember  GURPS Y2K?</title>
	<author>weinbrenner</author>
	<datestamp>1258276920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In October 1999 Steve Jackson Games published GURPS Y2K  which included an article named "Plastics Ate My Baby's WHAT" about the effects of phthalates. That was 10 years ago!</p><p>How is it possible that these things are known for such a long time and nobody cares?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In October 1999 Steve Jackson Games published GURPS Y2K which included an article named " Plastics Ate My Baby 's WHAT " about the effects of phthalates .
That was 10 years ago ! How is it possible that these things are known for such a long time and nobody cares ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In October 1999 Steve Jackson Games published GURPS Y2K  which included an article named "Plastics Ate My Baby's WHAT" about the effects of phthalates.
That was 10 years ago!How is it possible that these things are known for such a long time and nobody cares?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30108998</id>
	<title>Re:It's the chemicals!? Bollox to that!</title>
	<author>syousef</author>
	<datestamp>1258280400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>I can aspire to have anger issues? Be hero and join the military where I can shoot people? Be a local hero and hit and or throw and or catch a ball? Maybe something involving beating up and or shooting badguys.</i></p><p>Even at 6 months, little boys play differently to little girls and have different interests. Boys do tend to be agressive. The trick is to get that aggression out in a non-destructive way, and perhaps even to harness it. This is what sports are for. Many geeks don't recognise this, but are equally prone to aggression in the form of a pissing contest over technical skill or knowledge. Denying that the aggression exists is not useful and is quite destructive.</p><p><i>Also, child rearing isn't a particularly female position beyond infancy. Girls simply got stuck with it because they gave birth so its their responsibility. </i></p><p>Spoken like someone who's never had a child. I love my son, but there are times when no matter what I do I cannot comfort him. It's not for lack of trying. Trying to play that role, and failing, is enough to make you very depressed. I change nappies. I bath my child. I don't shirk my responsibilities. However I am not under the dillusion that I could do as well as his mum raising him, nor do I think that ripping him away from his mother after a few years so we can take turns at furthering our careers is a sane, rational, or workable idea. People who buy into these fantasies often find their lives a mess.</p><p>Perpetuating this fantasy that men and women are equally capable at all things is a hell of a lot more destructive than letting some boy relieve aggression by playing cops and robbers. Most politically correct mindless sheep cannot separate the concept of equality meaning holding each gender in equal regard and giving them equal rights to self determination, from the concept of equality as in everyone can do exactly the same things with equal skill regardless of gender. The first is critical for a healthy society in which women (ie half the population) aren't disenfranchised. The second is a mastabatory fantasy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I can aspire to have anger issues ?
Be hero and join the military where I can shoot people ?
Be a local hero and hit and or throw and or catch a ball ?
Maybe something involving beating up and or shooting badguys.Even at 6 months , little boys play differently to little girls and have different interests .
Boys do tend to be agressive .
The trick is to get that aggression out in a non-destructive way , and perhaps even to harness it .
This is what sports are for .
Many geeks do n't recognise this , but are equally prone to aggression in the form of a pissing contest over technical skill or knowledge .
Denying that the aggression exists is not useful and is quite destructive.Also , child rearing is n't a particularly female position beyond infancy .
Girls simply got stuck with it because they gave birth so its their responsibility .
Spoken like someone who 's never had a child .
I love my son , but there are times when no matter what I do I can not comfort him .
It 's not for lack of trying .
Trying to play that role , and failing , is enough to make you very depressed .
I change nappies .
I bath my child .
I do n't shirk my responsibilities .
However I am not under the dillusion that I could do as well as his mum raising him , nor do I think that ripping him away from his mother after a few years so we can take turns at furthering our careers is a sane , rational , or workable idea .
People who buy into these fantasies often find their lives a mess.Perpetuating this fantasy that men and women are equally capable at all things is a hell of a lot more destructive than letting some boy relieve aggression by playing cops and robbers .
Most politically correct mindless sheep can not separate the concept of equality meaning holding each gender in equal regard and giving them equal rights to self determination , from the concept of equality as in everyone can do exactly the same things with equal skill regardless of gender .
The first is critical for a healthy society in which women ( ie half the population ) are n't disenfranchised .
The second is a mastabatory fantasy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can aspire to have anger issues?
Be hero and join the military where I can shoot people?
Be a local hero and hit and or throw and or catch a ball?
Maybe something involving beating up and or shooting badguys.Even at 6 months, little boys play differently to little girls and have different interests.
Boys do tend to be agressive.
The trick is to get that aggression out in a non-destructive way, and perhaps even to harness it.
This is what sports are for.
Many geeks don't recognise this, but are equally prone to aggression in the form of a pissing contest over technical skill or knowledge.
Denying that the aggression exists is not useful and is quite destructive.Also, child rearing isn't a particularly female position beyond infancy.
Girls simply got stuck with it because they gave birth so its their responsibility.
Spoken like someone who's never had a child.
I love my son, but there are times when no matter what I do I cannot comfort him.
It's not for lack of trying.
Trying to play that role, and failing, is enough to make you very depressed.
I change nappies.
I bath my child.
I don't shirk my responsibilities.
However I am not under the dillusion that I could do as well as his mum raising him, nor do I think that ripping him away from his mother after a few years so we can take turns at furthering our careers is a sane, rational, or workable idea.
People who buy into these fantasies often find their lives a mess.Perpetuating this fantasy that men and women are equally capable at all things is a hell of a lot more destructive than letting some boy relieve aggression by playing cops and robbers.
Most politically correct mindless sheep cannot separate the concept of equality meaning holding each gender in equal regard and giving them equal rights to self determination, from the concept of equality as in everyone can do exactly the same things with equal skill regardless of gender.
The first is critical for a healthy society in which women (ie half the population) aren't disenfranchised.
The second is a mastabatory fantasy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105344</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105236</id>
	<title>Re:It's the chemicals!? Bollox to that!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258295460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Social factors could perhaps have a role, but there's no evidence for it, as far as I know.

</p><p>There is however a lot of evidence that environmental oestrogens have an effect on development, and much of this evidence is nicely summarised in the linked article.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Social factors could perhaps have a role , but there 's no evidence for it , as far as I know .
There is however a lot of evidence that environmental oestrogens have an effect on development , and much of this evidence is nicely summarised in the linked article .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Social factors could perhaps have a role, but there's no evidence for it, as far as I know.
There is however a lot of evidence that environmental oestrogens have an effect on development, and much of this evidence is nicely summarised in the linked article.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105178</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30107708</id>
	<title>Re:Mixed up: Biological Gender vs. Feminization</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258316220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's not just about the sperm, it's about the uterus.  I've read vegetarian women are more likely to give birth to females, for example.  Obviously that couldn't be explained by sperm.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not just about the sperm , it 's about the uterus .
I 've read vegetarian women are more likely to give birth to females , for example .
Obviously that could n't be explained by sperm .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not just about the sperm, it's about the uterus.
I've read vegetarian women are more likely to give birth to females, for example.
Obviously that couldn't be explained by sperm.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105510</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105210</id>
	<title>Dolls and tea sets?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258295100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't understand how hormones will dictate that you will enjoy dolls and tea sets and cross dress. Aren't all those things... cultural...?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't understand how hormones will dictate that you will enjoy dolls and tea sets and cross dress .
Are n't all those things... cultural... ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't understand how hormones will dictate that you will enjoy dolls and tea sets and cross dress.
Aren't all those things... cultural...?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30109110</id>
	<title>Re:It's the chemicals!? Bollox to that!</title>
	<author>mdwh2</author>
	<datestamp>1258281300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I agree - it's one thing if chemicals are "feminising" boys in a biological sense (e.g., giving them female sex organs), but it's annoying to see this conflated by things that have nothing to do with biology, such as clothes.</p><p>Who decides what "female" clothes are? Is the female-ness of skirts hardcoded into DNA? Of course, it's nonsense. Are women "masculinised" because they wear "male" clothes like trousers, do "male" jobs, and can vote?</p><p>The irony is that if enough men started wearing so-called "female" clothes, they'd no longer be seen as "female" clothes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree - it 's one thing if chemicals are " feminising " boys in a biological sense ( e.g. , giving them female sex organs ) , but it 's annoying to see this conflated by things that have nothing to do with biology , such as clothes.Who decides what " female " clothes are ?
Is the female-ness of skirts hardcoded into DNA ?
Of course , it 's nonsense .
Are women " masculinised " because they wear " male " clothes like trousers , do " male " jobs , and can vote ? The irony is that if enough men started wearing so-called " female " clothes , they 'd no longer be seen as " female " clothes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree - it's one thing if chemicals are "feminising" boys in a biological sense (e.g., giving them female sex organs), but it's annoying to see this conflated by things that have nothing to do with biology, such as clothes.Who decides what "female" clothes are?
Is the female-ness of skirts hardcoded into DNA?
Of course, it's nonsense.
Are women "masculinised" because they wear "male" clothes like trousers, do "male" jobs, and can vote?The irony is that if enough men started wearing so-called "female" clothes, they'd no longer be seen as "female" clothes.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30107582</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105402</id>
	<title>Re:It's the chemicals!? Bollox to that!</title>
	<author>tsstahl</author>
	<datestamp>1258296960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>What? The nerve! Everyone knows fathers are supposed to ignore their children at all times, even if they're on fire.</p></div><p>I believe that exception actually passed at the last decennial International Man Convention.  Just make sure physical contact is kept to the barest minimum.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What ?
The nerve !
Everyone knows fathers are supposed to ignore their children at all times , even if they 're on fire.I believe that exception actually passed at the last decennial International Man Convention .
Just make sure physical contact is kept to the barest minimum .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What?
The nerve!
Everyone knows fathers are supposed to ignore their children at all times, even if they're on fire.I believe that exception actually passed at the last decennial International Man Convention.
Just make sure physical contact is kept to the barest minimum.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105222</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30107174</id>
	<title>Sounds good.</title>
	<author>Unit3</author>
	<datestamp>1258313160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Am I the only one who thinks this is probably a really good thing for society in the long run?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Am I the only one who thinks this is probably a really good thing for society in the long run ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Am I the only one who thinks this is probably a really good thing for society in the long run?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105310</id>
	<title>I'm fine</title>
	<author>Hangingcurve</author>
	<datestamp>1258296180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I skimmed over the article really fast and the only thing I was thinking about was lesbians.</p><p>I'm going to be just fine I think.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I skimmed over the article really fast and the only thing I was thinking about was lesbians.I 'm going to be just fine I think .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I skimmed over the article really fast and the only thing I was thinking about was lesbians.I'm going to be just fine I think.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30106052</id>
	<title>Re:A bonus for men</title>
	<author>misexistentialist</author>
	<datestamp>1258304700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Nah, there will be more lesbians. Might seem good, but they won't let you watch.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Nah , there will be more lesbians .
Might seem good , but they wo n't let you watch .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nah, there will be more lesbians.
Might seem good, but they won't let you watch.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105446</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30113638</id>
	<title>Re:Mixed up: Biological Gender vs. Feminization</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258372500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Informative and demeaning... classy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Informative and demeaning... classy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Informative and demeaning... classy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30108252</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105988</id>
	<title>Meat and milk are also a source of concern.</title>
	<author>delire</author>
	<datestamp>1258304280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Thankfully Europeans have banned what is considered safe practice in North America.<blockquote><div><p>By introducing female and male sex hormones into the animals, it is possible to increase the amount of meat that they produce without increasing the amount that they are fed.By adding the female sex hormones oestrogen and progesterone to cattle, scientists can stimulate the animals to produce extra muscle and fat. Adding the male sex hormone testosterone increases muscle growth, and decreases production of fat. Oestrogen has been linked to an increased risk of breast cancer and to reproductive disorders in men. Progesterone has been shown to increase the development of ovarian, breast and uterine tumours in laboratory animals.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>

From <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/medical\_notes/342136.stm" title="bbc.co.uk">here</a> [bbc.co.uk]
<br> <br>
Cows pumped up with hormones to produce milk all year round is seemingly also <a href="http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/2006/12.07/11-dairy.html" title="harvard.edu"> doing damage.</a> [harvard.edu] Men receive a lot of oestrogen via milk produced in this fashion, nothing the dairy industry wants anyone to know about, of course.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Thankfully Europeans have banned what is considered safe practice in North America.By introducing female and male sex hormones into the animals , it is possible to increase the amount of meat that they produce without increasing the amount that they are fed.By adding the female sex hormones oestrogen and progesterone to cattle , scientists can stimulate the animals to produce extra muscle and fat .
Adding the male sex hormone testosterone increases muscle growth , and decreases production of fat .
Oestrogen has been linked to an increased risk of breast cancer and to reproductive disorders in men .
Progesterone has been shown to increase the development of ovarian , breast and uterine tumours in laboratory animals .
From here [ bbc.co.uk ] Cows pumped up with hormones to produce milk all year round is seemingly also doing damage .
[ harvard.edu ] Men receive a lot of oestrogen via milk produced in this fashion , nothing the dairy industry wants anyone to know about , of course .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thankfully Europeans have banned what is considered safe practice in North America.By introducing female and male sex hormones into the animals, it is possible to increase the amount of meat that they produce without increasing the amount that they are fed.By adding the female sex hormones oestrogen and progesterone to cattle, scientists can stimulate the animals to produce extra muscle and fat.
Adding the male sex hormone testosterone increases muscle growth, and decreases production of fat.
Oestrogen has been linked to an increased risk of breast cancer and to reproductive disorders in men.
Progesterone has been shown to increase the development of ovarian, breast and uterine tumours in laboratory animals.
From here [bbc.co.uk]
 
Cows pumped up with hormones to produce milk all year round is seemingly also  doing damage.
[harvard.edu] Men receive a lot of oestrogen via milk produced in this fashion, nothing the dairy industry wants anyone to know about, of course.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30114710</id>
	<title>The problem are not the chemicals</title>
	<author>wye43</author>
	<datestamp>1258384020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Its Denmark. I live here and I see the males completely emasculated - sorry guys but it&rsquo;s the truth. It&rsquo;s a feminist society.<br>
<br>
For details read:<br>
<a href="http://www.rense.com/general79/brave.htm" title="rense.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.rense.com/general79/brave.htm</a> [rense.com] <br>
<a href="http://www.city-data.com/forum/world/398666-denmark-sucks-happiest-nation-my-ass.html" title="city-data.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.city-data.com/forum/world/398666-denmark-sucks-happiest-nation-my-ass.html</a> [city-data.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Its Denmark .
I live here and I see the males completely emasculated - sorry guys but it    s the truth .
It    s a feminist society .
For details read : http : //www.rense.com/general79/brave.htm [ rense.com ] http : //www.city-data.com/forum/world/398666-denmark-sucks-happiest-nation-my-ass.html [ city-data.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Its Denmark.
I live here and I see the males completely emasculated - sorry guys but it’s the truth.
It’s a feminist society.
For details read:
http://www.rense.com/general79/brave.htm [rense.com] 
http://www.city-data.com/forum/world/398666-denmark-sucks-happiest-nation-my-ass.html [city-data.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105426</id>
	<title>Re:Good news for feminism</title>
	<author>StackedCrooked</author>
	<datestamp>1258297140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why is this good news for feminism? It could negatively be interpreted as: "poisonous chemicals degrade boys into girls" implying that feminine is somehow less than masculine.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why is this good news for feminism ?
It could negatively be interpreted as : " poisonous chemicals degrade boys into girls " implying that feminine is somehow less than masculine .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why is this good news for feminism?
It could negatively be interpreted as: "poisonous chemicals degrade boys into girls" implying that feminine is somehow less than masculine.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105214</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30108072</id>
	<title>Well to those of us with junks</title>
	<author>Eightbitgnosis</author>
	<datestamp>1258317900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>All aboard the class action lawsuit express!</htmltext>
<tokenext>All aboard the class action lawsuit express !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All aboard the class action lawsuit express!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30106076</id>
	<title>Re:It's the chemicals!? Bollox to that!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258304940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>presenting them with effeminate roll models</p></div></blockquote><p>
Damn straight! Our fathers had manly <b>biscuits and gravy,</b> not these sissy croissants!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>presenting them with effeminate roll models Damn straight !
Our fathers had manly biscuits and gravy , not these sissy croissants !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>presenting them with effeminate roll models
Damn straight!
Our fathers had manly biscuits and gravy, not these sissy croissants!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105178</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30106006</id>
	<title>Re:Dolls and tea sets?</title>
	<author>Hatta</author>
	<datestamp>1258304460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No, they are not.  Next question?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No , they are not .
Next question ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, they are not.
Next question?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105210</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105656</id>
	<title>Torchwood knew</title>
	<author>earlymon</author>
	<datestamp>1258299180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>First episode (AFAIR), Captain Jack Harkness, tasting the estrogen in the rain - and cursing this bloody planet for its mismanagement of chemical waste.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>First episode ( AFAIR ) , Captain Jack Harkness , tasting the estrogen in the rain - and cursing this bloody planet for its mismanagement of chemical waste .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First episode (AFAIR), Captain Jack Harkness, tasting the estrogen in the rain - and cursing this bloody planet for its mismanagement of chemical waste.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30106106</id>
	<title>Re:Gender ratios are not a problem</title>
	<author>ceoyoyo</author>
	<datestamp>1258305240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not if those 10\% men have dismally low sperm counts.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not if those 10 \ % men have dismally low sperm counts .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not if those 10\% men have dismally low sperm counts.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105298</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105528</id>
	<title>Re:Gender ratios are not a problem</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258297980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I believe the ratio of men as a percentage of total world population is actually increasing, as female fetuses are aborted or abandoned at much higher rates in many parts of the world. The numbers cited here simply refer to the rate of conception.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I believe the ratio of men as a percentage of total world population is actually increasing , as female fetuses are aborted or abandoned at much higher rates in many parts of the world .
The numbers cited here simply refer to the rate of conception .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I believe the ratio of men as a percentage of total world population is actually increasing, as female fetuses are aborted or abandoned at much higher rates in many parts of the world.
The numbers cited here simply refer to the rate of conception.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105298</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105970</id>
	<title>So less queer eye for the straight guy?</title>
	<author>zelik</author>
	<datestamp>1258304160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Seeing as Queer eye for the straight guy has disappeared, we have nothing to be afraid of.  I personally think the "feminizing" of guys, aka metrosexualism (sic), is purely a result of the demand for more hygenic and "beautiful" men by women.  What girl doesn't love the way gay guys look?  Sure, women like the masculine looking guy too but usually that includes waxed chest hair, symmetrically shaved stubble, etc. <br> <br>Quoting David Chappelle, ""If men could have sex with a woman in a cardboard box, we wouldn't buy a house...."  <br> <br>Anyway, back to topic:  we should be ok as long as more women drink/eat hormone laden milk and beef.  Do a google on the topic, or go here for a sample (poor one, albeit): <a href="http://www.foodservicewarehouse.com/education/health-safety/growth-hormones.aspx" title="foodservicewarehouse.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.foodservicewarehouse.com/education/health-safety/growth-hormones.aspx</a> [foodservicewarehouse.com] <br> <br>  We'll have super feminine women and sorta effeminate men.  We'll be back at square one!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Seeing as Queer eye for the straight guy has disappeared , we have nothing to be afraid of .
I personally think the " feminizing " of guys , aka metrosexualism ( sic ) , is purely a result of the demand for more hygenic and " beautiful " men by women .
What girl does n't love the way gay guys look ?
Sure , women like the masculine looking guy too but usually that includes waxed chest hair , symmetrically shaved stubble , etc .
Quoting David Chappelle , " " If men could have sex with a woman in a cardboard box , we would n't buy a house.... " Anyway , back to topic : we should be ok as long as more women drink/eat hormone laden milk and beef .
Do a google on the topic , or go here for a sample ( poor one , albeit ) : http : //www.foodservicewarehouse.com/education/health-safety/growth-hormones.aspx [ foodservicewarehouse.com ] We 'll have super feminine women and sorta effeminate men .
We 'll be back at square one !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seeing as Queer eye for the straight guy has disappeared, we have nothing to be afraid of.
I personally think the "feminizing" of guys, aka metrosexualism (sic), is purely a result of the demand for more hygenic and "beautiful" men by women.
What girl doesn't love the way gay guys look?
Sure, women like the masculine looking guy too but usually that includes waxed chest hair, symmetrically shaved stubble, etc.
Quoting David Chappelle, ""If men could have sex with a woman in a cardboard box, we wouldn't buy a house...."   Anyway, back to topic:  we should be ok as long as more women drink/eat hormone laden milk and beef.
Do a google on the topic, or go here for a sample (poor one, albeit): http://www.foodservicewarehouse.com/education/health-safety/growth-hormones.aspx [foodservicewarehouse.com]    We'll have super feminine women and sorta effeminate men.
We'll be back at square one!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30108340</id>
	<title>The Disappearing Male</title>
	<author>cfriedt</author>
	<datestamp>1258276260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This story has also been covered before by a <a href="http://www.cbc.ca/documentaries/doczone/2008/disappearingmale/" title="www.cbc.ca" rel="nofollow">CBC documentary</a> [www.cbc.ca].</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This story has also been covered before by a CBC documentary [ www.cbc.ca ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This story has also been covered before by a CBC documentary [www.cbc.ca].</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30106276</id>
	<title>why focus on the boys</title>
	<author>Velex</author>
	<datestamp>1258306560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
First let me preface this rant by saying that the article is mistaking precocious puberty (I think) for brain sex and generally just a lot of rabble-rousing and nonsense.  Brain sex (along with sexual orientation) is established in the womb, not when you're a two-year old toddler.  Absolute rubbish.  Even if we're talking about feminization, there seem to be 3 separate things the article is completely jumbled about: brain sex, primary sex (genitals), and secondary sexual characteristics (e.g. sperm count, gynecomastia, facial hair, voice box resonance).  The article also completely ignores that all 3 of those things can sometimes naturally be a mixture of male and female.  Shit happens.  I also thought that the article was talking about sperm count in toddlers, but maybe I just need to get some coffee already.
</p><p>
That being said, does anyone know if girls could possibly be affected by this as well?  Are rates of female to male transsexualism dropping while male to female transsexualism rising?
</p><p>
Moreover, does anyone care?  Instead it appears we're so concerned about boys displaying feminine traits as though being feminine is some kind of sickness.  It seems we probably wouldn't even care if girls were becoming more masculine, since masculinity is *good* and femininity is *bad* (but a condition of being a weaker female, so we'll allow it in females).
</p><p>
Granted, being a male to female transsexual does suck, and if there's something causing it we should take time to understand what's happening and how to prevent it.  However, if humans at large are causing male to female transsexualism, then doesn't society owe it to male to female transsexuals to help them integrate as women, e.g. by improving their access to hormone replacement and forcing insurance companies to cover genital surgery?
</p><p>
Oh, I forgot, femininity is what's wrong here, not the fact that they're normal women psychologically who just happened to be male for some reason.  We must destroy the disease of femininity!
</p><p>
*sigh*.  Maybe the most telling thing will be when this post gets modded into oblivion.
</p><p>
If the articles are true, does anyone have an answer for a male affected by the problem?  We sure as hell don't know how to change brain sex.  Does that mean we'll just keep calling them fags and perverts and sick in the head and parading them on Jerry Springer and electrocuting them?  Will we at least give these transgendered males a chance at having a little self-worth?  I'm looking at feminists like Janice Raymond as much as I'm looking at Jerry Springer here.
</p><p>
Of course I'm talking about it as though transsexualism is something completely new, caused by these chemicals.  Humanity has had female to male and male to female transsexualism long before it even knew what a petrochemical was.  For some reason though we view the female to male transsexual as ascention, a natural course of moving from weakness to strength whereas the male to female transsexual is a deception, a shameful mockery.
</p><p>
I guess that's pretty clever actually.  How do you get a conservative on board to get serious about the environment?  Play on his misogyny.  Why else would he care about something feminine like "mother earth" unless the environment might prevent him from having a strong son.
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>First let me preface this rant by saying that the article is mistaking precocious puberty ( I think ) for brain sex and generally just a lot of rabble-rousing and nonsense .
Brain sex ( along with sexual orientation ) is established in the womb , not when you 're a two-year old toddler .
Absolute rubbish .
Even if we 're talking about feminization , there seem to be 3 separate things the article is completely jumbled about : brain sex , primary sex ( genitals ) , and secondary sexual characteristics ( e.g .
sperm count , gynecomastia , facial hair , voice box resonance ) .
The article also completely ignores that all 3 of those things can sometimes naturally be a mixture of male and female .
Shit happens .
I also thought that the article was talking about sperm count in toddlers , but maybe I just need to get some coffee already .
That being said , does anyone know if girls could possibly be affected by this as well ?
Are rates of female to male transsexualism dropping while male to female transsexualism rising ?
Moreover , does anyone care ?
Instead it appears we 're so concerned about boys displaying feminine traits as though being feminine is some kind of sickness .
It seems we probably would n't even care if girls were becoming more masculine , since masculinity is * good * and femininity is * bad * ( but a condition of being a weaker female , so we 'll allow it in females ) .
Granted , being a male to female transsexual does suck , and if there 's something causing it we should take time to understand what 's happening and how to prevent it .
However , if humans at large are causing male to female transsexualism , then does n't society owe it to male to female transsexuals to help them integrate as women , e.g .
by improving their access to hormone replacement and forcing insurance companies to cover genital surgery ?
Oh , I forgot , femininity is what 's wrong here , not the fact that they 're normal women psychologically who just happened to be male for some reason .
We must destroy the disease of femininity !
* sigh * . Maybe the most telling thing will be when this post gets modded into oblivion .
If the articles are true , does anyone have an answer for a male affected by the problem ?
We sure as hell do n't know how to change brain sex .
Does that mean we 'll just keep calling them fags and perverts and sick in the head and parading them on Jerry Springer and electrocuting them ?
Will we at least give these transgendered males a chance at having a little self-worth ?
I 'm looking at feminists like Janice Raymond as much as I 'm looking at Jerry Springer here .
Of course I 'm talking about it as though transsexualism is something completely new , caused by these chemicals .
Humanity has had female to male and male to female transsexualism long before it even knew what a petrochemical was .
For some reason though we view the female to male transsexual as ascention , a natural course of moving from weakness to strength whereas the male to female transsexual is a deception , a shameful mockery .
I guess that 's pretty clever actually .
How do you get a conservative on board to get serious about the environment ?
Play on his misogyny .
Why else would he care about something feminine like " mother earth " unless the environment might prevent him from having a strong son .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
First let me preface this rant by saying that the article is mistaking precocious puberty (I think) for brain sex and generally just a lot of rabble-rousing and nonsense.
Brain sex (along with sexual orientation) is established in the womb, not when you're a two-year old toddler.
Absolute rubbish.
Even if we're talking about feminization, there seem to be 3 separate things the article is completely jumbled about: brain sex, primary sex (genitals), and secondary sexual characteristics (e.g.
sperm count, gynecomastia, facial hair, voice box resonance).
The article also completely ignores that all 3 of those things can sometimes naturally be a mixture of male and female.
Shit happens.
I also thought that the article was talking about sperm count in toddlers, but maybe I just need to get some coffee already.
That being said, does anyone know if girls could possibly be affected by this as well?
Are rates of female to male transsexualism dropping while male to female transsexualism rising?
Moreover, does anyone care?
Instead it appears we're so concerned about boys displaying feminine traits as though being feminine is some kind of sickness.
It seems we probably wouldn't even care if girls were becoming more masculine, since masculinity is *good* and femininity is *bad* (but a condition of being a weaker female, so we'll allow it in females).
Granted, being a male to female transsexual does suck, and if there's something causing it we should take time to understand what's happening and how to prevent it.
However, if humans at large are causing male to female transsexualism, then doesn't society owe it to male to female transsexuals to help them integrate as women, e.g.
by improving their access to hormone replacement and forcing insurance companies to cover genital surgery?
Oh, I forgot, femininity is what's wrong here, not the fact that they're normal women psychologically who just happened to be male for some reason.
We must destroy the disease of femininity!
*sigh*.  Maybe the most telling thing will be when this post gets modded into oblivion.
If the articles are true, does anyone have an answer for a male affected by the problem?
We sure as hell don't know how to change brain sex.
Does that mean we'll just keep calling them fags and perverts and sick in the head and parading them on Jerry Springer and electrocuting them?
Will we at least give these transgendered males a chance at having a little self-worth?
I'm looking at feminists like Janice Raymond as much as I'm looking at Jerry Springer here.
Of course I'm talking about it as though transsexualism is something completely new, caused by these chemicals.
Humanity has had female to male and male to female transsexualism long before it even knew what a petrochemical was.
For some reason though we view the female to male transsexual as ascention, a natural course of moving from weakness to strength whereas the male to female transsexual is a deception, a shameful mockery.
I guess that's pretty clever actually.
How do you get a conservative on board to get serious about the environment?
Play on his misogyny.
Why else would he care about something feminine like "mother earth" unless the environment might prevent him from having a strong son.
</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30109614</id>
	<title>Re:Transsexualism</title>
	<author>Alsee</author>
	<datestamp>1258284900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>BlueParrot (965239): <i>One theory about why transsexualism occurs has been that it is a hormone induced neurological change that occurs early in development. While science is far from concluded on weather this is the case, I can from personal experience state that it is not a fun place to be.</i></p><p>Would it be insensitive of me to make a PinkParrot joke?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p><p>-</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>BlueParrot ( 965239 ) : One theory about why transsexualism occurs has been that it is a hormone induced neurological change that occurs early in development .
While science is far from concluded on weather this is the case , I can from personal experience state that it is not a fun place to be.Would it be insensitive of me to make a PinkParrot joke ?
; ) -</tokentext>
<sentencetext>BlueParrot (965239): One theory about why transsexualism occurs has been that it is a hormone induced neurological change that occurs early in development.
While science is far from concluded on weather this is the case, I can from personal experience state that it is not a fun place to be.Would it be insensitive of me to make a PinkParrot joke?
;)-</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105274</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30107362</id>
	<title>Re:Is it such a bad thing?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258314060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Umm... since we are being sexist and all anyway, what part buying a $15,000 furnature set every 2 years on a $30,000 a year constitutes thoughtfulness?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Umm... since we are being sexist and all anyway , what part buying a $ 15,000 furnature set every 2 years on a $ 30,000 a year constitutes thoughtfulness ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Umm... since we are being sexist and all anyway, what part buying a $15,000 furnature set every 2 years on a $30,000 a year constitutes thoughtfulness?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105366</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30106262</id>
	<title>Re:It's the chemicals!? Bollox to that!</title>
	<author>gtall</author>
	<datestamp>1258306440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Someone above wondered on the effect environmental oestrogens had on animals. In the Potomoc river (runs by Washington D.C) fish are observed to have transgender traits over and above any natural underlying statistic signal and it has been shown to be result of environmental oestrogens. So it does occur.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Someone above wondered on the effect environmental oestrogens had on animals .
In the Potomoc river ( runs by Washington D.C ) fish are observed to have transgender traits over and above any natural underlying statistic signal and it has been shown to be result of environmental oestrogens .
So it does occur .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Someone above wondered on the effect environmental oestrogens had on animals.
In the Potomoc river (runs by Washington D.C) fish are observed to have transgender traits over and above any natural underlying statistic signal and it has been shown to be result of environmental oestrogens.
So it does occur.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105236</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30113942</id>
	<title>Re:Mixed up: Biological Gender vs. Feminization</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258376520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Biological gender (dictated by the presence of an Y vs. X chromosome) is irrevocably determined at the moment a spermium merges with an egg, excluding very rare cases of extra chromosomes etc.</i></p><p>Nope. Look up AIS (Androgen Insensitvity Syndrome) and you'll see you are completely wrong on this.<br>The chromosone makeup is only the first stage. You can be a fully formed functional female (with no drive for gender reassignment etc.) despite having XY chromosones - because the Y chromosone is not 'activated' (effectively ignored) with AIS. No extra or missing chromosones needed.</p><p>In general, the chromosones are just the start of the process of primary sexual differentiation occurring during early fetal development.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Biological gender ( dictated by the presence of an Y vs. X chromosome ) is irrevocably determined at the moment a spermium merges with an egg , excluding very rare cases of extra chromosomes etc.Nope .
Look up AIS ( Androgen Insensitvity Syndrome ) and you 'll see you are completely wrong on this.The chromosone makeup is only the first stage .
You can be a fully formed functional female ( with no drive for gender reassignment etc .
) despite having XY chromosones - because the Y chromosone is not 'activated ' ( effectively ignored ) with AIS .
No extra or missing chromosones needed.In general , the chromosones are just the start of the process of primary sexual differentiation occurring during early fetal development .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Biological gender (dictated by the presence of an Y vs. X chromosome) is irrevocably determined at the moment a spermium merges with an egg, excluding very rare cases of extra chromosomes etc.Nope.
Look up AIS (Androgen Insensitvity Syndrome) and you'll see you are completely wrong on this.The chromosone makeup is only the first stage.
You can be a fully formed functional female (with no drive for gender reassignment etc.
) despite having XY chromosones - because the Y chromosone is not 'activated' (effectively ignored) with AIS.
No extra or missing chromosones needed.In general, the chromosones are just the start of the process of primary sexual differentiation occurring during early fetal development.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105510</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30109322</id>
	<title>a potent mixture</title>
	<author>diogenes.lantern</author>
	<datestamp>1258282980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I didn't know feminism was a chemical compound</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I did n't know feminism was a chemical compound</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I didn't know feminism was a chemical compound</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30120668</id>
	<title>Re:Transsexualism</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1258362720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There is also manboobs, and I'd be willing to bet that these come from the same thing. When I was young you almost never saw a man with breasts; almost all men with boobs were grossly obese, but I see guys these days that are only a little overweight with bigger tits than some women. And when I was in the sixth grade there was only one girl with breasts, but when my kids were in 6th grade all the girls did.</p><p>As to the other effects of these chemicals, thank God and modern medicine for viagra!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is also manboobs , and I 'd be willing to bet that these come from the same thing .
When I was young you almost never saw a man with breasts ; almost all men with boobs were grossly obese , but I see guys these days that are only a little overweight with bigger tits than some women .
And when I was in the sixth grade there was only one girl with breasts , but when my kids were in 6th grade all the girls did.As to the other effects of these chemicals , thank God and modern medicine for viagra !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is also manboobs, and I'd be willing to bet that these come from the same thing.
When I was young you almost never saw a man with breasts; almost all men with boobs were grossly obese, but I see guys these days that are only a little overweight with bigger tits than some women.
And when I was in the sixth grade there was only one girl with breasts, but when my kids were in 6th grade all the girls did.As to the other effects of these chemicals, thank God and modern medicine for viagra!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105274</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30112948</id>
	<title>Re:Dolls and tea sets?</title>
	<author>praksys</author>
	<datestamp>1258362660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Aren't all those things... cultural...?</i></p><p>No. The details (like tea sets or the type of doll) may be cultural, but the types of mental and physical ability that are engaged by different types of play are not cultural. For example, when girls play with "dolls" they typically play out social interactions in which the salient features of the game are the social relationships between the characters. When boys play with "action figures" they typically act out hunt, contest, and combat scenarios in which the salient features of the game tend to be things like, who shot first, what got blown up, and who won.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Are n't all those things... cultural... ? No. The details ( like tea sets or the type of doll ) may be cultural , but the types of mental and physical ability that are engaged by different types of play are not cultural .
For example , when girls play with " dolls " they typically play out social interactions in which the salient features of the game are the social relationships between the characters .
When boys play with " action figures " they typically act out hunt , contest , and combat scenarios in which the salient features of the game tend to be things like , who shot first , what got blown up , and who won .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Aren't all those things... cultural...?No. The details (like tea sets or the type of doll) may be cultural, but the types of mental and physical ability that are engaged by different types of play are not cultural.
For example, when girls play with "dolls" they typically play out social interactions in which the salient features of the game are the social relationships between the characters.
When boys play with "action figures" they typically act out hunt, contest, and combat scenarios in which the salient features of the game tend to be things like, who shot first, what got blown up, and who won.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105210</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30107748</id>
	<title>Re:It's the chemicals!? Bollox to that!</title>
	<author>snowgirl</author>
	<datestamp>1258316460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><blockquote><div><p>Also, child rearing isn't a particularly female position beyond infancy. Girls simply got stuck with it because they gave birth so its their responsibility. And the idea that violence and aggression is a manly thing. Or that it is something we should hope to aspire to is complete BS.</p></div></blockquote><p>It's not just that the woman gave birth.  One partner has to gather food / earn money / etc.  Historically speaking, the man was more capable of doing this job because of his physical makeup.  So the other job of caring for children fell to the female.  Not to mention that, again historically speaking, the amount of time she was <i>not</i> caring for one infant or another was usually pretty small.</p><p>You could also argue there are other gender differences that make women more effective at caring for children that aren't just the result of socialization. I don't have a link handy, but I recall reading some research about how women (as a group) are better able to discern emotions by looking at the faces of other people.  Stuff like that.</p><p>I'm not mentioning these to defend the idea that men should have no part in child-rearing.  Not at all.  But I think you oversimplify the reasons why this task has traditionally fallen to women.</p></div><p>While it is true that women have taken primary position on raising children, because as you note, men are more physically capable.  Women collected food in pre-agricultural societies as well (and still do today).  In at least one culture, the men are given the job of collecting food, because they're the subordinate gender.  While the women sit around drinking and spitting, and playing cards.  The men wear the makeup and the lavish outfits, while the women typically dump an aging man for a hot young boy.</p><p>As well, you also have a point that women are more likely to be able to read emotions in others... it also relates to the fact that autism is vastly more likely to affect men than women.</p><p>All that said, in pre-agricultural societies women do not solely raise children.  In fact, the men spend/spent less time acquiring goods for the family than in any other society, and participate a lot in raising the children.</p><p>The idea that women are solely and individually responsible for raising children is us over-accentuating the differences that were already there.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Also , child rearing is n't a particularly female position beyond infancy .
Girls simply got stuck with it because they gave birth so its their responsibility .
And the idea that violence and aggression is a manly thing .
Or that it is something we should hope to aspire to is complete BS.It 's not just that the woman gave birth .
One partner has to gather food / earn money / etc .
Historically speaking , the man was more capable of doing this job because of his physical makeup .
So the other job of caring for children fell to the female .
Not to mention that , again historically speaking , the amount of time she was not caring for one infant or another was usually pretty small.You could also argue there are other gender differences that make women more effective at caring for children that are n't just the result of socialization .
I do n't have a link handy , but I recall reading some research about how women ( as a group ) are better able to discern emotions by looking at the faces of other people .
Stuff like that.I 'm not mentioning these to defend the idea that men should have no part in child-rearing .
Not at all .
But I think you oversimplify the reasons why this task has traditionally fallen to women.While it is true that women have taken primary position on raising children , because as you note , men are more physically capable .
Women collected food in pre-agricultural societies as well ( and still do today ) .
In at least one culture , the men are given the job of collecting food , because they 're the subordinate gender .
While the women sit around drinking and spitting , and playing cards .
The men wear the makeup and the lavish outfits , while the women typically dump an aging man for a hot young boy.As well , you also have a point that women are more likely to be able to read emotions in others... it also relates to the fact that autism is vastly more likely to affect men than women.All that said , in pre-agricultural societies women do not solely raise children .
In fact , the men spend/spent less time acquiring goods for the family than in any other society , and participate a lot in raising the children.The idea that women are solely and individually responsible for raising children is us over-accentuating the differences that were already there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Also, child rearing isn't a particularly female position beyond infancy.
Girls simply got stuck with it because they gave birth so its their responsibility.
And the idea that violence and aggression is a manly thing.
Or that it is something we should hope to aspire to is complete BS.It's not just that the woman gave birth.
One partner has to gather food / earn money / etc.
Historically speaking, the man was more capable of doing this job because of his physical makeup.
So the other job of caring for children fell to the female.
Not to mention that, again historically speaking, the amount of time she was not caring for one infant or another was usually pretty small.You could also argue there are other gender differences that make women more effective at caring for children that aren't just the result of socialization.
I don't have a link handy, but I recall reading some research about how women (as a group) are better able to discern emotions by looking at the faces of other people.
Stuff like that.I'm not mentioning these to defend the idea that men should have no part in child-rearing.
Not at all.
But I think you oversimplify the reasons why this task has traditionally fallen to women.While it is true that women have taken primary position on raising children, because as you note, men are more physically capable.
Women collected food in pre-agricultural societies as well (and still do today).
In at least one culture, the men are given the job of collecting food, because they're the subordinate gender.
While the women sit around drinking and spitting, and playing cards.
The men wear the makeup and the lavish outfits, while the women typically dump an aging man for a hot young boy.As well, you also have a point that women are more likely to be able to read emotions in others... it also relates to the fact that autism is vastly more likely to affect men than women.All that said, in pre-agricultural societies women do not solely raise children.
In fact, the men spend/spent less time acquiring goods for the family than in any other society, and participate a lot in raising the children.The idea that women are solely and individually responsible for raising children is us over-accentuating the differences that were already there.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105702</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30113418</id>
	<title>finally</title>
	<author>ticktickboom</author>
	<datestamp>1258369380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>a scientific reason for EMO</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>a scientific reason for EMO</tokentext>
<sentencetext>a scientific reason for EMO</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30112028</id>
	<title>Re:It's the chemicals!? Bollox to that!</title>
	<author>aqk</author>
	<datestamp>1258306920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>WTF is wrong with YOU? <br>
Haven't you heard this plastic/ estrogen theory before?  <br>
It's been around at least 10 years. <br>
Howcum the Danes have just woken up?</htmltext>
<tokenext>WTF is wrong with YOU ?
Have n't you heard this plastic/ estrogen theory before ?
It 's been around at least 10 years .
Howcum the Danes have just woken up ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>WTF is wrong with YOU?
Haven't you heard this plastic/ estrogen theory before?
It's been around at least 10 years.
Howcum the Danes have just woken up?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105332</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30107040</id>
	<title>WTF?!</title>
	<author>ILuvRamen</author>
	<datestamp>1258312320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm no biologist but what gender you are determined what chromosome you get.  Any amount of synthetic estogren won't change your gender at any age, born yet or not.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm no biologist but what gender you are determined what chromosome you get .
Any amount of synthetic estogren wo n't change your gender at any age , born yet or not .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm no biologist but what gender you are determined what chromosome you get.
Any amount of synthetic estogren won't change your gender at any age, born yet or not.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105366</id>
	<title>Is it such a bad thing?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258296720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Would a slight emasculation be such a bad thing? When you think of the <b>masculine</b> elements of society, these come to mind:</p><ul> <li>hunting</li><li>conquest</li><li>self-reliance</li><li>power</li><li>dominance</li><li>strength</li><li>competition</li><li>bluster</li></ul><p>Whereas these are more associated with <b>feminine</b> elements, these come to mind: </p><ul> <li>subtlety</li><li>compassion</li><li>trade</li><li>art</li><li>negotiation</li><li>nature</li><li>agriculture</li><li>thoughtfulness</li></ul><p>IMHO, the feminine model is a far better fit for 21st century culture and technology.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Would a slight emasculation be such a bad thing ?
When you think of the masculine elements of society , these come to mind : huntingconquestself-reliancepowerdominancestrengthcompetitionblusterWhereas these are more associated with feminine elements , these come to mind : subtletycompassiontradeartnegotiationnatureagriculturethoughtfulnessIMHO , the feminine model is a far better fit for 21st century culture and technology .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Would a slight emasculation be such a bad thing?
When you think of the masculine elements of society, these come to mind: huntingconquestself-reliancepowerdominancestrengthcompetitionblusterWhereas these are more associated with feminine elements, these come to mind:  subtletycompassiontradeartnegotiationnatureagriculturethoughtfulnessIMHO, the feminine model is a far better fit for 21st century culture and technology.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30106454</id>
	<title>Name for those chemicals</title>
	<author>kikito</author>
	<datestamp>1258307760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Let's call them Final Fantasy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Let 's call them Final Fantasy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let's call them Final Fantasy.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105854</id>
	<title>Great news!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258303200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is fantastic news, the less masculinity and testosterone in the world the better! Hope this trend continues to the point where one day, a half million years from now, males don't exist at all and are no longer needed<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:P</p><p>But feminism aside, I think this is more of a good thing then a bad thing, for anybody. Less testosterone going through boys means likely less aggression and violence, more kindness and nurturing. This doesn't hurt anybody. Just some egos maybe, and most people's egos could use a little downsizing now and then.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is fantastic news , the less masculinity and testosterone in the world the better !
Hope this trend continues to the point where one day , a half million years from now , males do n't exist at all and are no longer needed : PBut feminism aside , I think this is more of a good thing then a bad thing , for anybody .
Less testosterone going through boys means likely less aggression and violence , more kindness and nurturing .
This does n't hurt anybody .
Just some egos maybe , and most people 's egos could use a little downsizing now and then .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is fantastic news, the less masculinity and testosterone in the world the better!
Hope this trend continues to the point where one day, a half million years from now, males don't exist at all and are no longer needed :PBut feminism aside, I think this is more of a good thing then a bad thing, for anybody.
Less testosterone going through boys means likely less aggression and violence, more kindness and nurturing.
This doesn't hurt anybody.
Just some egos maybe, and most people's egos could use a little downsizing now and then.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30106450</id>
	<title>Masculinity is obsolete</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258307760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This article almost comes across as being written by some kind of homophobe. Sure, avoid chemicals that are really dangerous, and while were are at it they want to "fix" the problem of feminine males. Wake up! The traditional male roles are slowly becoming obsolete and the male form is slowly becoming socially undesirable. (Ya know, according to the all mighty TV if you are born male you might as well go ahead and fill out a sex offender registration form because because your are sure to be a rapist, pedafile, pervert, or something)</p><p>It sounds like they want to blame this "problem" on some magic chemical that they can make go away, lest find themselves in a world surrounded by Ranma Satome-alikes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This article almost comes across as being written by some kind of homophobe .
Sure , avoid chemicals that are really dangerous , and while were are at it they want to " fix " the problem of feminine males .
Wake up !
The traditional male roles are slowly becoming obsolete and the male form is slowly becoming socially undesirable .
( Ya know , according to the all mighty TV if you are born male you might as well go ahead and fill out a sex offender registration form because because your are sure to be a rapist , pedafile , pervert , or something ) It sounds like they want to blame this " problem " on some magic chemical that they can make go away , lest find themselves in a world surrounded by Ranma Satome-alikes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This article almost comes across as being written by some kind of homophobe.
Sure, avoid chemicals that are really dangerous, and while were are at it they want to "fix" the problem of feminine males.
Wake up!
The traditional male roles are slowly becoming obsolete and the male form is slowly becoming socially undesirable.
(Ya know, according to the all mighty TV if you are born male you might as well go ahead and fill out a sex offender registration form because because your are sure to be a rapist, pedafile, pervert, or something)It sounds like they want to blame this "problem" on some magic chemical that they can make go away, lest find themselves in a world surrounded by Ranma Satome-alikes.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105440</id>
	<title>Puberty</title>
	<author>BlackSheep713</author>
	<datestamp>1258297380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Wait...2 year olds don't have sperm, at least that is what I remember from health class.  If it drives down their sperm count, does that mean their testicle will implode?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Wait...2 year olds do n't have sperm , at least that is what I remember from health class .
If it drives down their sperm count , does that mean their testicle will implode ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wait...2 year olds don't have sperm, at least that is what I remember from health class.
If it drives down their sperm count, does that mean their testicle will implode?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105762</id>
	<title>Our Stolen Future</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258300200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Although <a href="http://www.ourstolenfuture.org/" title="ourstolenfuture.org" rel="nofollow">this book</a> [ourstolenfuture.org] is focused on how xenobiotics affect fertility, the topic of feminization is discussed in passing.</p><p>I love how this book was published back in '97, and now, more than a decade later, we still keep pumping endocrine disruptors into the environment and in consumer products. Ha-ha.</p><p>As for masculinized females, go look up "guevedoche"...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Although this book [ ourstolenfuture.org ] is focused on how xenobiotics affect fertility , the topic of feminization is discussed in passing.I love how this book was published back in '97 , and now , more than a decade later , we still keep pumping endocrine disruptors into the environment and in consumer products .
Ha-ha.As for masculinized females , go look up " guevedoche " .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Although this book [ourstolenfuture.org] is focused on how xenobiotics affect fertility, the topic of feminization is discussed in passing.I love how this book was published back in '97, and now, more than a decade later, we still keep pumping endocrine disruptors into the environment and in consumer products.
Ha-ha.As for masculinized females, go look up "guevedoche"...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105638</id>
	<title>Re:It could be both.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258298940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The statement "Gender roles such as play preferences are completely cultural" has become a joke unfalsifiable statement. Any evidence of the contrary is seen as the proof that gender cultural oppression is so pervasive and so omnipresent that no one can escape from it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The statement " Gender roles such as play preferences are completely cultural " has become a joke unfalsifiable statement .
Any evidence of the contrary is seen as the proof that gender cultural oppression is so pervasive and so omnipresent that no one can escape from it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The statement "Gender roles such as play preferences are completely cultural" has become a joke unfalsifiable statement.
Any evidence of the contrary is seen as the proof that gender cultural oppression is so pervasive and so omnipresent that no one can escape from it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105350</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30106314</id>
	<title>Re:It's not the chemicals, it's the media</title>
	<author>misexistentialist</author>
	<datestamp>1258306800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>The media is just reflecting societal changes due largely to the increased status of women. As females become more active, men shift to a more passive role, until everyone is equally metro-sexual. Socialized Europe is seen as effeminate partly for this reason.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The media is just reflecting societal changes due largely to the increased status of women .
As females become more active , men shift to a more passive role , until everyone is equally metro-sexual .
Socialized Europe is seen as effeminate partly for this reason .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The media is just reflecting societal changes due largely to the increased status of women.
As females become more active, men shift to a more passive role, until everyone is equally metro-sexual.
Socialized Europe is seen as effeminate partly for this reason.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105796</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30110492</id>
	<title>Re:what about chemicals that are masculinizing gir</title>
	<author>pbhj</author>
	<datestamp>1258291380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>So, simply put...  what about the environmental chemicals that are masculinizing girls?  Is it really just a matter of plastics feminizing boys?  Or does it go both ways?  Is it a matter of environmental toxicity in general?</p></div><p>The number of plastics used in modern life has increased at an accelerating rate over the last few decades. The number of naturally occurring chemicals contacted (with increased city dwelling and "sterilised" food production) has been rapidly declining over the same period. The effect of natural volumes of "environmental chemicals" is overall decreasing whilst that of petrochemical derivatives is (or at least has been) increasing at a huge rate.</p><p>To pick one, what's your proposed pathway for worldwide chemical feminisation based on nuclear detante?</p><p>The links you give discuss Araliaceae (the Ivy Family) and genus of the same, the Google one doesn't mention aromatase (?!). How many of the population contact plastics based aromatase inhibitors vs. those of the araliaceae family of plants? It looks from the ScienceDirect link that the contact needs to be in the presence of hexane- or ethyl-acetance too.</p><p>From the Telegraph article:</p><p>"Scientists at the University of Rochester in New York discovered that boys born to women exposed to phthalates had smaller penises and other feminisation of the genitals."</p><p>Do you know how many of the population have been in contact with phthalates? Everyone who has used a plastic packaged squeezable bottle of some sort in the last 80 years.</p><p>"The authors of a 2008 study "observed that reported use of infant lotion, infant powder, and infant shampoo were associated with increased infant urine concentrations of [phthalate metabolites], and this association is strongest in younger infants." (Wikipedia)</p><p>But hey, perhaps that ivy everyone is mixing with ethyl-ethanoate and feeding to their babies is doing lots of damage too.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So , simply put... what about the environmental chemicals that are masculinizing girls ?
Is it really just a matter of plastics feminizing boys ?
Or does it go both ways ?
Is it a matter of environmental toxicity in general ? The number of plastics used in modern life has increased at an accelerating rate over the last few decades .
The number of naturally occurring chemicals contacted ( with increased city dwelling and " sterilised " food production ) has been rapidly declining over the same period .
The effect of natural volumes of " environmental chemicals " is overall decreasing whilst that of petrochemical derivatives is ( or at least has been ) increasing at a huge rate.To pick one , what 's your proposed pathway for worldwide chemical feminisation based on nuclear detante ? The links you give discuss Araliaceae ( the Ivy Family ) and genus of the same , the Google one does n't mention aromatase ( ? ! ) .
How many of the population contact plastics based aromatase inhibitors vs. those of the araliaceae family of plants ?
It looks from the ScienceDirect link that the contact needs to be in the presence of hexane- or ethyl-acetance too.From the Telegraph article : " Scientists at the University of Rochester in New York discovered that boys born to women exposed to phthalates had smaller penises and other feminisation of the genitals .
" Do you know how many of the population have been in contact with phthalates ?
Everyone who has used a plastic packaged squeezable bottle of some sort in the last 80 years .
" The authors of a 2008 study " observed that reported use of infant lotion , infant powder , and infant shampoo were associated with increased infant urine concentrations of [ phthalate metabolites ] , and this association is strongest in younger infants .
" ( Wikipedia ) But hey , perhaps that ivy everyone is mixing with ethyl-ethanoate and feeding to their babies is doing lots of damage too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, simply put...  what about the environmental chemicals that are masculinizing girls?
Is it really just a matter of plastics feminizing boys?
Or does it go both ways?
Is it a matter of environmental toxicity in general?The number of plastics used in modern life has increased at an accelerating rate over the last few decades.
The number of naturally occurring chemicals contacted (with increased city dwelling and "sterilised" food production) has been rapidly declining over the same period.
The effect of natural volumes of "environmental chemicals" is overall decreasing whilst that of petrochemical derivatives is (or at least has been) increasing at a huge rate.To pick one, what's your proposed pathway for worldwide chemical feminisation based on nuclear detante?The links you give discuss Araliaceae (the Ivy Family) and genus of the same, the Google one doesn't mention aromatase (?!).
How many of the population contact plastics based aromatase inhibitors vs. those of the araliaceae family of plants?
It looks from the ScienceDirect link that the contact needs to be in the presence of hexane- or ethyl-acetance too.From the Telegraph article:"Scientists at the University of Rochester in New York discovered that boys born to women exposed to phthalates had smaller penises and other feminisation of the genitals.
"Do you know how many of the population have been in contact with phthalates?
Everyone who has used a plastic packaged squeezable bottle of some sort in the last 80 years.
"The authors of a 2008 study "observed that reported use of infant lotion, infant powder, and infant shampoo were associated with increased infant urine concentrations of [phthalate metabolites], and this association is strongest in younger infants.
" (Wikipedia)But hey, perhaps that ivy everyone is mixing with ethyl-ethanoate and feeding to their babies is doing lots of damage too.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105696</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105702</id>
	<title>Re:It's the chemicals!? Bollox to that!</title>
	<author>buddyglass</author>
	<datestamp>1258299600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Also, child rearing isn't a particularly female position beyond infancy. Girls simply got stuck with it because they gave birth so its their responsibility. And the idea that violence and aggression is a manly thing. Or that it is something we should hope to aspire to is complete BS.</p></div></blockquote><p>It's not just that the woman gave birth.  One partner has to gather food / earn money / etc.  Historically speaking, the man was more capable of doing this job because of his physical makeup.  So the other job of caring for children fell to the female.  Not to mention that, again historically speaking, the amount of time she was <i>not</i> caring for one infant or another was usually pretty small.</p><p>You could also argue there are other gender differences that make women more effective at caring for children that aren't just the result of socialization. I don't have a link handy, but I recall reading some research about how women (as a group) are better able to discern emotions by looking at the faces of other people.  Stuff like that.</p><p>I'm not mentioning these to defend the idea that men should have no part in child-rearing.  Not at all.  But I think you oversimplify the reasons why this task has traditionally fallen to women.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Also , child rearing is n't a particularly female position beyond infancy .
Girls simply got stuck with it because they gave birth so its their responsibility .
And the idea that violence and aggression is a manly thing .
Or that it is something we should hope to aspire to is complete BS.It 's not just that the woman gave birth .
One partner has to gather food / earn money / etc .
Historically speaking , the man was more capable of doing this job because of his physical makeup .
So the other job of caring for children fell to the female .
Not to mention that , again historically speaking , the amount of time she was not caring for one infant or another was usually pretty small.You could also argue there are other gender differences that make women more effective at caring for children that are n't just the result of socialization .
I do n't have a link handy , but I recall reading some research about how women ( as a group ) are better able to discern emotions by looking at the faces of other people .
Stuff like that.I 'm not mentioning these to defend the idea that men should have no part in child-rearing .
Not at all .
But I think you oversimplify the reasons why this task has traditionally fallen to women .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Also, child rearing isn't a particularly female position beyond infancy.
Girls simply got stuck with it because they gave birth so its their responsibility.
And the idea that violence and aggression is a manly thing.
Or that it is something we should hope to aspire to is complete BS.It's not just that the woman gave birth.
One partner has to gather food / earn money / etc.
Historically speaking, the man was more capable of doing this job because of his physical makeup.
So the other job of caring for children fell to the female.
Not to mention that, again historically speaking, the amount of time she was not caring for one infant or another was usually pretty small.You could also argue there are other gender differences that make women more effective at caring for children that aren't just the result of socialization.
I don't have a link handy, but I recall reading some research about how women (as a group) are better able to discern emotions by looking at the faces of other people.
Stuff like that.I'm not mentioning these to defend the idea that men should have no part in child-rearing.
Not at all.
But I think you oversimplify the reasons why this task has traditionally fallen to women.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105344</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30112058</id>
	<title>The Danes just figured this out?</title>
	<author>aqk</author>
	<datestamp>1258307340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Wha?   This is NEWZ? This theory has been around for more than 10 years. <br>
<br>
  <a href="http://www.cbc.ca/documentaries/doczone/2008/disappearingmale/" title="www.cbc.ca" rel="nofollow"> <b>Here's a report </b> </a> [www.cbc.ca] that the CBC (Canadian Broadcasting Corp) put out last year.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Wha ?
This is NEWZ ?
This theory has been around for more than 10 years .
Here 's a report [ www.cbc.ca ] that the CBC ( Canadian Broadcasting Corp ) put out last year .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wha?
This is NEWZ?
This theory has been around for more than 10 years.
Here's a report   [www.cbc.ca] that the CBC (Canadian Broadcasting Corp) put out last year.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30122120</id>
	<title>This gives me an idea...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258368180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Does this have to be a bad thing?  Why not have China double dip those toys in the highest level of hormone laden chemicals they have and send the lot of them to Middle East courtesy of America.  Those men could use some gentling.   Watch what happens when they try putting on full black Burkas and walking around in 110 degree heat.  Seriously, some estrogen might calm that hornets nest down.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Does this have to be a bad thing ?
Why not have China double dip those toys in the highest level of hormone laden chemicals they have and send the lot of them to Middle East courtesy of America .
Those men could use some gentling .
Watch what happens when they try putting on full black Burkas and walking around in 110 degree heat .
Seriously , some estrogen might calm that hornets nest down .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does this have to be a bad thing?
Why not have China double dip those toys in the highest level of hormone laden chemicals they have and send the lot of them to Middle East courtesy of America.
Those men could use some gentling.
Watch what happens when they try putting on full black Burkas and walking around in 110 degree heat.
Seriously, some estrogen might calm that hornets nest down.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105566</id>
	<title>Re:Is it such a bad thing?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258298280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If that is how you feel by all means try to be more feminine. The rest of us prefer to have a choice in these matters, rather than have the choice made for us (indeed, forcing choices upon others is, according to your lists, a masculine thing, and therefore it has no place in the feminine society you seem so keen to create).</p><p>Besides, I like to think self-reliance, strength and competition are positive qualities. Many of the most famous artists were guys, so I'm not sure 'art' should be considered a 'feminine element', nor is there reason to believe that 'thoughtfulness' should be on that list of yours.</p><p>Maybe you could try pointing to some sources to convince us that you didn't just pull those lists out of you ass, then some more sources to show that the masculine elements are bad for society, and then some more to convince us that forcing emasculation on 50\% of your citizens is ethical.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If that is how you feel by all means try to be more feminine .
The rest of us prefer to have a choice in these matters , rather than have the choice made for us ( indeed , forcing choices upon others is , according to your lists , a masculine thing , and therefore it has no place in the feminine society you seem so keen to create ) .Besides , I like to think self-reliance , strength and competition are positive qualities .
Many of the most famous artists were guys , so I 'm not sure 'art ' should be considered a 'feminine element ' , nor is there reason to believe that 'thoughtfulness ' should be on that list of yours.Maybe you could try pointing to some sources to convince us that you did n't just pull those lists out of you ass , then some more sources to show that the masculine elements are bad for society , and then some more to convince us that forcing emasculation on 50 \ % of your citizens is ethical .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If that is how you feel by all means try to be more feminine.
The rest of us prefer to have a choice in these matters, rather than have the choice made for us (indeed, forcing choices upon others is, according to your lists, a masculine thing, and therefore it has no place in the feminine society you seem so keen to create).Besides, I like to think self-reliance, strength and competition are positive qualities.
Many of the most famous artists were guys, so I'm not sure 'art' should be considered a 'feminine element', nor is there reason to believe that 'thoughtfulness' should be on that list of yours.Maybe you could try pointing to some sources to convince us that you didn't just pull those lists out of you ass, then some more sources to show that the masculine elements are bad for society, and then some more to convince us that forcing emasculation on 50\% of your citizens is ethical.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105366</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30106152</id>
	<title>Handwaving Transgenderism?</title>
	<author>\_KiTA\_</author>
	<datestamp>1258305660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Isn't the solution more obvious -- in developed societies, boys and girls won't be killed or beaten for doing things that don't fit the traditional gender roles.  (Yes, I'm quite aware that the US still has plenty of bigots who would beat or kill transmen and transwomen.)</p><p>Sure, there may be chemicals damaging sperm production and the like, but it seems like a lot of this could be explained by more open minds.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is n't the solution more obvious -- in developed societies , boys and girls wo n't be killed or beaten for doing things that do n't fit the traditional gender roles .
( Yes , I 'm quite aware that the US still has plenty of bigots who would beat or kill transmen and transwomen .
) Sure , there may be chemicals damaging sperm production and the like , but it seems like a lot of this could be explained by more open minds .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Isn't the solution more obvious -- in developed societies, boys and girls won't be killed or beaten for doing things that don't fit the traditional gender roles.
(Yes, I'm quite aware that the US still has plenty of bigots who would beat or kill transmen and transwomen.
)Sure, there may be chemicals damaging sperm production and the like, but it seems like a lot of this could be explained by more open minds.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30113446</id>
	<title>Re:I get it!!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258369860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So, by putting feminizing chemicals into male cosmetics, they boost the demand for more male cosmetics<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... how diabolic!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So , by putting feminizing chemicals into male cosmetics , they boost the demand for more male cosmetics ... how diabolic !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, by putting feminizing chemicals into male cosmetics, they boost the demand for more male cosmetics ... how diabolic!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105292</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30110264</id>
	<title>Re:A bonus for men</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258289760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Except that testosterone is responsible for sex drive in women too, IIRC; those women with more oestrogen-like chemical inputs are just going to get bitchy, not want to "date" you.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Except that testosterone is responsible for sex drive in women too , IIRC ; those women with more oestrogen-like chemical inputs are just going to get bitchy , not want to " date " you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Except that testosterone is responsible for sex drive in women too, IIRC; those women with more oestrogen-like chemical inputs are just going to get bitchy, not want to "date" you.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105446</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105246</id>
	<title>Re:Dolls and tea sets?</title>
	<author>noname444</author>
	<datestamp>1258295520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'd mod you up, but I'm fresh out of mod points</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd mod you up , but I 'm fresh out of mod points</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd mod you up, but I'm fresh out of mod points</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105210</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105802</id>
	<title>Only Chemicals?</title>
	<author>ovanklot</author>
	<datestamp>1258302480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How about every American comedy since the 1990's?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How about every American comedy since the 1990 's ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How about every American comedy since the 1990's?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30112312</id>
	<title>Re:It's the chemicals!? Bollox to that!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258310520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When we were kids, we DREAMED of being put on fire.....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When we were kids , we DREAMED of being put on fire.... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When we were kids, we DREAMED of being put on fire.....</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105568</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30106162</id>
	<title>Re:Transsexualism</title>
	<author>VoidCrow</author>
	<datestamp>1258305780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If the basic human body plan, sans hormonal influence, is an underfeminised female, then *any* fail in the developmental process that leads to a masculine human will have some influence on the individual's state of masculinity. There's more than one known mechanism. Kleinfelters Syndrome, partial androgen insensitivity (may not affect all cell lines). Pre-natal hormonal influence. There are more, and that's just off the top of my head.</p><p>Obviously, the situation is different for ftm transsexuals. This may account for the disparity in numbers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If the basic human body plan , sans hormonal influence , is an underfeminised female , then * any * fail in the developmental process that leads to a masculine human will have some influence on the individual 's state of masculinity .
There 's more than one known mechanism .
Kleinfelters Syndrome , partial androgen insensitivity ( may not affect all cell lines ) .
Pre-natal hormonal influence .
There are more , and that 's just off the top of my head.Obviously , the situation is different for ftm transsexuals .
This may account for the disparity in numbers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the basic human body plan, sans hormonal influence, is an underfeminised female, then *any* fail in the developmental process that leads to a masculine human will have some influence on the individual's state of masculinity.
There's more than one known mechanism.
Kleinfelters Syndrome, partial androgen insensitivity (may not affect all cell lines).
Pre-natal hormonal influence.
There are more, and that's just off the top of my head.Obviously, the situation is different for ftm transsexuals.
This may account for the disparity in numbers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105274</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30106880</id>
	<title>Re:Mixed up: Biological Gender vs. Feminization</title>
	<author>h4rr4r</author>
	<datestamp>1258311120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There is no such thing as "Biological Gender". Sex is biological, gender is solely a social construct. That social construct might be based on sex, and even traits of those sexes, but it is still just a social construct.</p><p>Sex is not totally XY vs XX either, see androgen insensitivity.</p><p>In short this poster and anyone who modded him up are all idiots of the highest order.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is no such thing as " Biological Gender " .
Sex is biological , gender is solely a social construct .
That social construct might be based on sex , and even traits of those sexes , but it is still just a social construct.Sex is not totally XY vs XX either , see androgen insensitivity.In short this poster and anyone who modded him up are all idiots of the highest order .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is no such thing as "Biological Gender".
Sex is biological, gender is solely a social construct.
That social construct might be based on sex, and even traits of those sexes, but it is still just a social construct.Sex is not totally XY vs XX either, see androgen insensitivity.In short this poster and anyone who modded him up are all idiots of the highest order.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105510</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30109384</id>
	<title>Re:It's the chemicals!? Bollox to that!</title>
	<author>phantomfive</author>
	<datestamp>1258283280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>When you hear the word 'manly' what are your first thoughts, I'd like to know what<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/.'s reaction to the word is?</p></div><p>You've hit on the negative aspects of manliness. The positive aspects are summed up as follows: a good leader takes care of his followers before himself, a good cowboy feeds his horse before he feeds himself.<br> <br>
A real man is brave, strong, capable, honest, and doesn't give in to fear and laziness.  He doesn't take the easy way out.  He tries not to be a hypocrite.  He doesn't enjoy killing, but will do so if it is necessary.  Fighting is to be avoided, but not feared.  He tries to take care of those around him, and make sure they are ok. Though it may sound cliche, he understands that with great power comes great responsibility. He is not a slave to his sexual drive.  He knows when to take out his gun, and when to put it away.  You will never find a man whining or complaining, instead he will be trying to find a way to solve his problems.<br> <br>
For an example in a movie of the traditional manly man, you have to go back to the 60s and watch something like Spartacus. The whole point of the movie is to contrast the greatness of a man like Spartacus with the weakness of a man like Crassus.  Who would follow a man like Crassus?  He didn't care about his followers at all: he manipulated and threatened them.  Spartacus on the other hand loved his men, and they loved him in return. Brotherly love is a very manly trait. <br> <br>
We don't have hero movies like that anymore.  Now all our movies are about the lone-wolf, the spiderman who fights by himself, the Ironman who uses technology to do everything by himself. Which are great movies too, but they are missing something.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>When you hear the word 'manly ' what are your first thoughts , I 'd like to know what / .
's reaction to the word is ? You 've hit on the negative aspects of manliness .
The positive aspects are summed up as follows : a good leader takes care of his followers before himself , a good cowboy feeds his horse before he feeds himself .
A real man is brave , strong , capable , honest , and does n't give in to fear and laziness .
He does n't take the easy way out .
He tries not to be a hypocrite .
He does n't enjoy killing , but will do so if it is necessary .
Fighting is to be avoided , but not feared .
He tries to take care of those around him , and make sure they are ok. Though it may sound cliche , he understands that with great power comes great responsibility .
He is not a slave to his sexual drive .
He knows when to take out his gun , and when to put it away .
You will never find a man whining or complaining , instead he will be trying to find a way to solve his problems .
For an example in a movie of the traditional manly man , you have to go back to the 60s and watch something like Spartacus .
The whole point of the movie is to contrast the greatness of a man like Spartacus with the weakness of a man like Crassus .
Who would follow a man like Crassus ?
He did n't care about his followers at all : he manipulated and threatened them .
Spartacus on the other hand loved his men , and they loved him in return .
Brotherly love is a very manly trait .
We do n't have hero movies like that anymore .
Now all our movies are about the lone-wolf , the spiderman who fights by himself , the Ironman who uses technology to do everything by himself .
Which are great movies too , but they are missing something .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When you hear the word 'manly' what are your first thoughts, I'd like to know what /.
's reaction to the word is?You've hit on the negative aspects of manliness.
The positive aspects are summed up as follows: a good leader takes care of his followers before himself, a good cowboy feeds his horse before he feeds himself.
A real man is brave, strong, capable, honest, and doesn't give in to fear and laziness.
He doesn't take the easy way out.
He tries not to be a hypocrite.
He doesn't enjoy killing, but will do so if it is necessary.
Fighting is to be avoided, but not feared.
He tries to take care of those around him, and make sure they are ok. Though it may sound cliche, he understands that with great power comes great responsibility.
He is not a slave to his sexual drive.
He knows when to take out his gun, and when to put it away.
You will never find a man whining or complaining, instead he will be trying to find a way to solve his problems.
For an example in a movie of the traditional manly man, you have to go back to the 60s and watch something like Spartacus.
The whole point of the movie is to contrast the greatness of a man like Spartacus with the weakness of a man like Crassus.
Who would follow a man like Crassus?
He didn't care about his followers at all: he manipulated and threatened them.
Spartacus on the other hand loved his men, and they loved him in return.
Brotherly love is a very manly trait.
We don't have hero movies like that anymore.
Now all our movies are about the lone-wolf, the spiderman who fights by himself, the Ironman who uses technology to do everything by himself.
Which are great movies too, but they are missing something.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105344</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30106492</id>
	<title>Seduction Guru Dimitri The Lover WARNED EVERYONE!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258308120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>www.dimitrithelover.com/toronto\_real\_men\_august\_2009.html</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>www.dimitrithelover.com/toronto \ _real \ _men \ _august \ _2009.html</tokentext>
<sentencetext>www.dimitrithelover.com/toronto\_real\_men\_august\_2009.html</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105974</id>
	<title>estrogen</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258304220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And I thought I was getting man boobs from eating too much.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And I thought I was getting man boobs from eating too much .
: )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And I thought I was getting man boobs from eating too much.
:)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105244</id>
	<title>326 page report - where?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258295520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Chem Trust's website has some PDF files, but none of them are 326 pages, as mentioned in the Telegraph article.

<a href="http://www.chemtrust.org.uk/Press\_and\_Media.php" title="chemtrust.org.uk" rel="nofollow">http://www.chemtrust.org.uk/Press\_and\_Media.php</a> [chemtrust.org.uk]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Chem Trust 's website has some PDF files , but none of them are 326 pages , as mentioned in the Telegraph article .
http : //www.chemtrust.org.uk/Press \ _and \ _Media.php [ chemtrust.org.uk ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Chem Trust's website has some PDF files, but none of them are 326 pages, as mentioned in the Telegraph article.
http://www.chemtrust.org.uk/Press\_and\_Media.php [chemtrust.org.uk]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30106598</id>
	<title>Re:Transsexualism</title>
	<author>Artifakt</author>
	<datestamp>1258308840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Even outside the specific issue of transexual orientations....<br>Which seems more likely?<br>1. hormone mimicing substances will cause a largeish percentage of men to become well adjusted males with lower reproductive rates and some social norms we often consider feminine, but this won't screw up human breeding enough to cause anything as drastic as a population crash. A lack of aggression in males will have its positive side, and increased nurturing will be a significant one of them.<br>2. hormone mimicing substances will cause a largeish percentage of men to become very poorly adjusted males with lower reproductive rates and some fragmentary and mixed traits we often consider feminine, but those won't form a stable mental system for those unfortunates, and instead will result in men who simply can't fit in to ANY evolutionarily stable model of human social conduct. This in turn will screw up human breeding enough to cause a tremendous population crash even before it reaches levels where reproduction is physically blocked. The loss of desire to 'fraternise with the enemy' will make the 'war between the sexes' a genuinely violent business, much as it does in overcrowded rodent populations.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Even outside the specific issue of transexual orientations....Which seems more likely ? 1 .
hormone mimicing substances will cause a largeish percentage of men to become well adjusted males with lower reproductive rates and some social norms we often consider feminine , but this wo n't screw up human breeding enough to cause anything as drastic as a population crash .
A lack of aggression in males will have its positive side , and increased nurturing will be a significant one of them.2 .
hormone mimicing substances will cause a largeish percentage of men to become very poorly adjusted males with lower reproductive rates and some fragmentary and mixed traits we often consider feminine , but those wo n't form a stable mental system for those unfortunates , and instead will result in men who simply ca n't fit in to ANY evolutionarily stable model of human social conduct .
This in turn will screw up human breeding enough to cause a tremendous population crash even before it reaches levels where reproduction is physically blocked .
The loss of desire to 'fraternise with the enemy ' will make the 'war between the sexes ' a genuinely violent business , much as it does in overcrowded rodent populations .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Even outside the specific issue of transexual orientations....Which seems more likely?1.
hormone mimicing substances will cause a largeish percentage of men to become well adjusted males with lower reproductive rates and some social norms we often consider feminine, but this won't screw up human breeding enough to cause anything as drastic as a population crash.
A lack of aggression in males will have its positive side, and increased nurturing will be a significant one of them.2.
hormone mimicing substances will cause a largeish percentage of men to become very poorly adjusted males with lower reproductive rates and some fragmentary and mixed traits we often consider feminine, but those won't form a stable mental system for those unfortunates, and instead will result in men who simply can't fit in to ANY evolutionarily stable model of human social conduct.
This in turn will screw up human breeding enough to cause a tremendous population crash even before it reaches levels where reproduction is physically blocked.
The loss of desire to 'fraternise with the enemy' will make the 'war between the sexes' a genuinely violent business, much as it does in overcrowded rodent populations.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105274</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30108756</id>
	<title>Familiar</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258278720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Y'know, this reminds me of something. Chemicals in food and water that begin sterilizing the male population, among other things...</p><p>Oh yeah, ancient Rome.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Y'know , this reminds me of something .
Chemicals in food and water that begin sterilizing the male population , among other things...Oh yeah , ancient Rome .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Y'know, this reminds me of something.
Chemicals in food and water that begin sterilizing the male population, among other things...Oh yeah, ancient Rome.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30110124</id>
	<title>Re:Is it such a bad thing?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258288680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>since when has a female ever produced art?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>since when has a female ever produced art ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>since when has a female ever produced art?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105366</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30106186</id>
	<title>Re:Mixed up: Biological Gender vs. Feminization</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258305960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's not just a matter of decreasing viability of Y sperm, but also the viability of zygotes/fetuses who were fertilized by Y sperm.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not just a matter of decreasing viability of Y sperm , but also the viability of zygotes/fetuses who were fertilized by Y sperm .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not just a matter of decreasing viability of Y sperm, but also the viability of zygotes/fetuses who were fertilized by Y sperm.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105510</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30106606</id>
	<title>Re:It's the chemicals!? Bollox to that!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258308900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I blame this new-fangled social networking bullshit.  They turn our kids into flamey snarky bitches, all of them.    Oh fuck off.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I blame this new-fangled social networking bullshit .
They turn our kids into flamey snarky bitches , all of them .
Oh fuck off .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I blame this new-fangled social networking bullshit.
They turn our kids into flamey snarky bitches, all of them.
Oh fuck off.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105178</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105984</id>
	<title>Social factor?</title>
	<author>Knutsi</author>
	<datestamp>1258304280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Could it be that people that use allot of items containing these substances also have a more feminine culture they pass on to their children?

As far as 106 girls for each 100 buys being born, could it be connected to a changing lifestyle in some way, like women choosing to get pregnant later because of careers?  Could it be that having plenty of food tweaks our fertility to produce more women and less men, and vice versa?

I have no clue, just suggesting... (:</htmltext>
<tokenext>Could it be that people that use allot of items containing these substances also have a more feminine culture they pass on to their children ?
As far as 106 girls for each 100 buys being born , could it be connected to a changing lifestyle in some way , like women choosing to get pregnant later because of careers ?
Could it be that having plenty of food tweaks our fertility to produce more women and less men , and vice versa ?
I have no clue , just suggesting... ( :</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Could it be that people that use allot of items containing these substances also have a more feminine culture they pass on to their children?
As far as 106 girls for each 100 buys being born, could it be connected to a changing lifestyle in some way, like women choosing to get pregnant later because of careers?
Could it be that having plenty of food tweaks our fertility to produce more women and less men, and vice versa?
I have no clue, just suggesting... (:</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30118838</id>
	<title>Re:It's the chemicals!? Bollox to that!</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1258400100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Lack of empathy.</i></p><p>I know a whole lot of woman who have less empathy in their whole being than I have in my pinkey finger. My ex-wife seemingly has no empathy for anyone, including her own children. Your statement is sexist.</p><p><i>Sex is everything.</i></p><p>Not everything, but damned important. Not having a healthy libido is unhealthy.</p><p><i>Aggression.</i></p><p>Again, that's sexist. Most women I know are far more agressive than any man I know, especially in traffic. And that seems to be universal; men have consequences for agression, women can be agressive with impunity. I've not been physically assaulted by a man since I was in the USAF, but this year alone I've had three different woman take swings at me because they didn't like my opinion. They knew I wouldn't hit back or they wouldn't have swung.</p><p><i>Bullying (particularly in packs).</i></p><p>Bullying is a sign of cowardice. Again, your statement is sexist.</p><p><i>The Bloke vibe.</i></p><p>I have no idea WTF that's supposed to mean. I know what a "bloke" is, and what a "vibe" is, but never heard of a "bloke vibe".</p><p><i>I'm lesbian, I hate my father.</i></p><p>Just because your dad's an asshole you assign his negative traits to all men. I suggest you get some counseling, because your dad seems to have really screwed your mind up. I feel for you, please get help.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Lack of empathy.I know a whole lot of woman who have less empathy in their whole being than I have in my pinkey finger .
My ex-wife seemingly has no empathy for anyone , including her own children .
Your statement is sexist.Sex is everything.Not everything , but damned important .
Not having a healthy libido is unhealthy.Aggression.Again , that 's sexist .
Most women I know are far more agressive than any man I know , especially in traffic .
And that seems to be universal ; men have consequences for agression , women can be agressive with impunity .
I 've not been physically assaulted by a man since I was in the USAF , but this year alone I 've had three different woman take swings at me because they did n't like my opinion .
They knew I would n't hit back or they would n't have swung.Bullying ( particularly in packs ) .Bullying is a sign of cowardice .
Again , your statement is sexist.The Bloke vibe.I have no idea WTF that 's supposed to mean .
I know what a " bloke " is , and what a " vibe " is , but never heard of a " bloke vibe " .I 'm lesbian , I hate my father.Just because your dad 's an asshole you assign his negative traits to all men .
I suggest you get some counseling , because your dad seems to have really screwed your mind up .
I feel for you , please get help .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Lack of empathy.I know a whole lot of woman who have less empathy in their whole being than I have in my pinkey finger.
My ex-wife seemingly has no empathy for anyone, including her own children.
Your statement is sexist.Sex is everything.Not everything, but damned important.
Not having a healthy libido is unhealthy.Aggression.Again, that's sexist.
Most women I know are far more agressive than any man I know, especially in traffic.
And that seems to be universal; men have consequences for agression, women can be agressive with impunity.
I've not been physically assaulted by a man since I was in the USAF, but this year alone I've had three different woman take swings at me because they didn't like my opinion.
They knew I wouldn't hit back or they wouldn't have swung.Bullying (particularly in packs).Bullying is a sign of cowardice.
Again, your statement is sexist.The Bloke vibe.I have no idea WTF that's supposed to mean.
I know what a "bloke" is, and what a "vibe" is, but never heard of a "bloke vibe".I'm lesbian, I hate my father.Just because your dad's an asshole you assign his negative traits to all men.
I suggest you get some counseling, because your dad seems to have really screwed your mind up.
I feel for you, please get help.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105952</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105524</id>
	<title>Re:It's the chemicals!? Bollox to that!</title>
	<author>Quiet\_Desperation</author>
	<datestamp>1258297980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well, you *could* light your cigar with the burning kid.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , you * could * light your cigar with the burning kid .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, you *could* light your cigar with the burning kid.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105222</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30106512</id>
	<title>PCB's and Gender-Benders</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258308240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That makes sense what is down wind of siliconvalley. I thought it was all just marijuana that was feminizing boys.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That makes sense what is down wind of siliconvalley .
I thought it was all just marijuana that was feminizing boys .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That makes sense what is down wind of siliconvalley.
I thought it was all just marijuana that was feminizing boys.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105420</id>
	<title>Re:Gender ratios are not a problem</title>
	<author>rdnetto</author>
	<datestamp>1258297080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Necessary, yes. Likely to, no. There are too many cultural and social factors involved. Even if we were to survive, humanity would undergo substantial change in the progress.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Necessary , yes .
Likely to , no .
There are too many cultural and social factors involved .
Even if we were to survive , humanity would undergo substantial change in the progress .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Necessary, yes.
Likely to, no.
There are too many cultural and social factors involved.
Even if we were to survive, humanity would undergo substantial change in the progress.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105298</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105606</id>
	<title>I'd like to give a round of applause to science!</title>
	<author>tjstork</author>
	<datestamp>1258298640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Guess all we bible thumping luddites in Amish country can still get it up, thank you very much.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Guess all we bible thumping luddites in Amish country can still get it up , thank you very much .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Guess all we bible thumping luddites in Amish country can still get it up, thank you very much.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30107734</id>
	<title>Re:It's not the chemicals, it's the media</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258316400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Welcome to the world of the tabloid (yet, still very politically correct) TV news.  Welcome to the Modern Faggotized World.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Welcome to the world of the tabloid ( yet , still very politically correct ) TV news .
Welcome to the Modern Faggotized World .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Welcome to the world of the tabloid (yet, still very politically correct) TV news.
Welcome to the Modern Faggotized World.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105796</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105350</id>
	<title>It could be both.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258296600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>One of the main reasons that we participate in cultural activities is to fit in with the group. If chemical-induced hormones made boys more likely to associate/relate with girls then they would be more likely to participate in girl activities - however culture defines them.</p><p>That said, it does seem like a bit of a leap to me - too many factors to control for to get meaningful results. I'd be more convinced by separate studies that showed that exposure to certain chemicals increased certain hormone levels, and people with those hormone levels were more likely to have feminine behavior than to jump straight between the two like the summary implies.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>One of the main reasons that we participate in cultural activities is to fit in with the group .
If chemical-induced hormones made boys more likely to associate/relate with girls then they would be more likely to participate in girl activities - however culture defines them.That said , it does seem like a bit of a leap to me - too many factors to control for to get meaningful results .
I 'd be more convinced by separate studies that showed that exposure to certain chemicals increased certain hormone levels , and people with those hormone levels were more likely to have feminine behavior than to jump straight between the two like the summary implies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One of the main reasons that we participate in cultural activities is to fit in with the group.
If chemical-induced hormones made boys more likely to associate/relate with girls then they would be more likely to participate in girl activities - however culture defines them.That said, it does seem like a bit of a leap to me - too many factors to control for to get meaningful results.
I'd be more convinced by separate studies that showed that exposure to certain chemicals increased certain hormone levels, and people with those hormone levels were more likely to have feminine behavior than to jump straight between the two like the summary implies.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105210</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30106590</id>
	<title>Re:what about chemicals that are masculinizing gir</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258308780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>First off, that long ScienceDirect URL... there's a reason why the DOI was invented.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:P http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.phytol.2008.10.009</p><p>Now people... realize that plants are really damned good stinkers when it comes to chemical warfare. Anybody who was surprised by that aromatase-inhibitor producing plant, go look up the case of the Australian sheep infertility and clover.</p><p>As for stuff suspected of feminizing males... I'm sure people here know that a certain well-known foodstuff has a good amount of phytoestrogens? Maybe soybeans should be studied carefully too?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>First off , that long ScienceDirect URL... there 's a reason why the DOI was invented .
: P http : //dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.phytol.2008.10.009Now people... realize that plants are really damned good stinkers when it comes to chemical warfare .
Anybody who was surprised by that aromatase-inhibitor producing plant , go look up the case of the Australian sheep infertility and clover.As for stuff suspected of feminizing males... I 'm sure people here know that a certain well-known foodstuff has a good amount of phytoestrogens ?
Maybe soybeans should be studied carefully too ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First off, that long ScienceDirect URL... there's a reason why the DOI was invented.
:P http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.phytol.2008.10.009Now people... realize that plants are really damned good stinkers when it comes to chemical warfare.
Anybody who was surprised by that aromatase-inhibitor producing plant, go look up the case of the Australian sheep infertility and clover.As for stuff suspected of feminizing males... I'm sure people here know that a certain well-known foodstuff has a good amount of phytoestrogens?
Maybe soybeans should be studied carefully too?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105696</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105650</id>
	<title>Re:Is it such a bad thing?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258299180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Damn mama's boy...turn in your man card now...if you ever had one that is.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Damn mama 's boy...turn in your man card now...if you ever had one that is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Damn mama's boy...turn in your man card now...if you ever had one that is.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105366</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30106864</id>
	<title>I blame it all on...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258310940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> The Lifetime Network (http://www.mylifetime.com/). Every man is a cheating bastard, every woman a victim of his boorish ways. After watching it for a few minutes with the missus, I start to question my masculinity. Thank God for that Chuck Norris poster behind the TV.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Lifetime Network ( http : //www.mylifetime.com/ ) .
Every man is a cheating bastard , every woman a victim of his boorish ways .
After watching it for a few minutes with the missus , I start to question my masculinity .
Thank God for that Chuck Norris poster behind the TV .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> The Lifetime Network (http://www.mylifetime.com/).
Every man is a cheating bastard, every woman a victim of his boorish ways.
After watching it for a few minutes with the missus, I start to question my masculinity.
Thank God for that Chuck Norris poster behind the TV.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105374</id>
	<title>How Ironic for Conservative Republicans</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258296840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>they want to completely deregulate all businesses, shut down the EPA, and get rid of every environmental law ever created. they make fun of green peace and anyone who doesn't eat mercury for breakfast is a 'goddamn treehugging long hair libtard'.</p><p>but in truth, it is Conservative, Christian Republicans who are responsible for the proliferation of transvestite and transexual porn sites, that keep mucking up my google image searches. The entire academic and social movement to legitimize the transgendered and even to create multiple genders 'in between' male and female owes it's rising popularity to the Republican War on Hippies.</p><p>Isn't it Ironic, don't you think?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>they want to completely deregulate all businesses , shut down the EPA , and get rid of every environmental law ever created .
they make fun of green peace and anyone who does n't eat mercury for breakfast is a 'goddamn treehugging long hair libtard'.but in truth , it is Conservative , Christian Republicans who are responsible for the proliferation of transvestite and transexual porn sites , that keep mucking up my google image searches .
The entire academic and social movement to legitimize the transgendered and even to create multiple genders 'in between ' male and female owes it 's rising popularity to the Republican War on Hippies.Is n't it Ironic , do n't you think ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>they want to completely deregulate all businesses, shut down the EPA, and get rid of every environmental law ever created.
they make fun of green peace and anyone who doesn't eat mercury for breakfast is a 'goddamn treehugging long hair libtard'.but in truth, it is Conservative, Christian Republicans who are responsible for the proliferation of transvestite and transexual porn sites, that keep mucking up my google image searches.
The entire academic and social movement to legitimize the transgendered and even to create multiple genders 'in between' male and female owes it's rising popularity to the Republican War on Hippies.Isn't it Ironic, don't you think?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30110078</id>
	<title>Evolution at work</title>
	<author>pubwvj</author>
	<datestamp>1258288380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So children raised in a more natural environment with less exposure to these things (pretty easy to do) will be more fertile (as well as not getting cancer as much according to other studies) resulting in a shift in the future population towards people who care about their health, vacate the cities and lead a more natural lifestyle eating organic foods (not necessarily Certified Big 'O' Organic but real organic). Darwinism in action.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So children raised in a more natural environment with less exposure to these things ( pretty easy to do ) will be more fertile ( as well as not getting cancer as much according to other studies ) resulting in a shift in the future population towards people who care about their health , vacate the cities and lead a more natural lifestyle eating organic foods ( not necessarily Certified Big 'O ' Organic but real organic ) .
Darwinism in action .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So children raised in a more natural environment with less exposure to these things (pretty easy to do) will be more fertile (as well as not getting cancer as much according to other studies) resulting in a shift in the future population towards people who care about their health, vacate the cities and lead a more natural lifestyle eating organic foods (not necessarily Certified Big 'O' Organic but real organic).
Darwinism in action.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105616</id>
	<title>More women then men?</title>
	<author>nurb432</author>
	<datestamp>1258298760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Cool.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Cool .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Cool.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105214</id>
	<title>Good news for feminism</title>
	<author>whatajoke</author>
	<datestamp>1258295160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Given that this is good news for feminism, I don't see anything being done to correct this.
<br>
And oh yeah, I submitted the <a href="http://slashdot.org/submission/1100617/Why-boys-are-turning-into-girls?art\_pos=1" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">same story</a> [slashdot.org] few week back.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Given that this is good news for feminism , I do n't see anything being done to correct this .
And oh yeah , I submitted the same story [ slashdot.org ] few week back .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Given that this is good news for feminism, I don't see anything being done to correct this.
And oh yeah, I submitted the same story [slashdot.org] few week back.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30106818</id>
	<title>Re:Denmark?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258310640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When you shoot a mime, do you use a silencer?</p><p>It all started when she said "We need to talk."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When you shoot a mime , do you use a silencer ? It all started when she said " We need to talk .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When you shoot a mime, do you use a silencer?It all started when she said "We need to talk.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105188</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30107582</id>
	<title>Re:It's the chemicals!? Bollox to that!</title>
	<author>snowgirl</author>
	<datestamp>1258315320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Yeah it has nothing to do with forcing boys to engage in more timid play, impressing upon them that when they grow older they'll be expected to do their share of the child rearing, presenting them with effeminate roll models, balking at allowing them to take risks or play "politically incorrect" games, keeping them away from violence and agression more than any previous generation, or putting them in female clothing for a giggle. Nothing to do with that at all. It's the chemicals!</p><p>GIMME A BREAK.</p></div><p>While you put it quite offensively, you're correct.  The toys that we play with are culturally defined.  Being "feminized" has nothing to do with which toys one plays with, and if they wear female clothing.  I could imagine back when women first started wearing pants in America, someone tried to look for what was "masculinizing" them.</p><p>And even then, men are not feminized into women, or even partial women... biologically, women are virilized into men, or partial men.  This is the same thing as "you're letting the cold in!" no... I'm letting the heat out.  Take a man, give them estrogen... say from an estrogen generating hormone, and what do you get?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... A MAN!  He doesn't feminize, he doesn't change significantly.  Mood swings, and crying?  Yeah, very likely some of that, but you don't get a woman.  He won't start wanting to wear dresses, and loving pink, etc etc etc.</p><p>This whole idea that there are significant biological differences between men and women is a bunch of horse shit, and it's tiring.  There are some biological differences, and we notice them, because the differences are accentuated by our culture, but so many of the differences that we purport, like toy choice, favorite colors, how we handle relationships?  All that is NOT biologically determined.  Men and women separate on those choices out of a desire to conform to their separate subcultures.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah it has nothing to do with forcing boys to engage in more timid play , impressing upon them that when they grow older they 'll be expected to do their share of the child rearing , presenting them with effeminate roll models , balking at allowing them to take risks or play " politically incorrect " games , keeping them away from violence and agression more than any previous generation , or putting them in female clothing for a giggle .
Nothing to do with that at all .
It 's the chemicals ! GIM ME A BREAK.While you put it quite offensively , you 're correct .
The toys that we play with are culturally defined .
Being " feminized " has nothing to do with which toys one plays with , and if they wear female clothing .
I could imagine back when women first started wearing pants in America , someone tried to look for what was " masculinizing " them.And even then , men are not feminized into women , or even partial women... biologically , women are virilized into men , or partial men .
This is the same thing as " you 're letting the cold in !
" no... I 'm letting the heat out .
Take a man , give them estrogen... say from an estrogen generating hormone , and what do you get ?
... A MAN !
He does n't feminize , he does n't change significantly .
Mood swings , and crying ?
Yeah , very likely some of that , but you do n't get a woman .
He wo n't start wanting to wear dresses , and loving pink , etc etc etc.This whole idea that there are significant biological differences between men and women is a bunch of horse shit , and it 's tiring .
There are some biological differences , and we notice them , because the differences are accentuated by our culture , but so many of the differences that we purport , like toy choice , favorite colors , how we handle relationships ?
All that is NOT biologically determined .
Men and women separate on those choices out of a desire to conform to their separate subcultures .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah it has nothing to do with forcing boys to engage in more timid play, impressing upon them that when they grow older they'll be expected to do their share of the child rearing, presenting them with effeminate roll models, balking at allowing them to take risks or play "politically incorrect" games, keeping them away from violence and agression more than any previous generation, or putting them in female clothing for a giggle.
Nothing to do with that at all.
It's the chemicals!GIMME A BREAK.While you put it quite offensively, you're correct.
The toys that we play with are culturally defined.
Being "feminized" has nothing to do with which toys one plays with, and if they wear female clothing.
I could imagine back when women first started wearing pants in America, someone tried to look for what was "masculinizing" them.And even then, men are not feminized into women, or even partial women... biologically, women are virilized into men, or partial men.
This is the same thing as "you're letting the cold in!
" no... I'm letting the heat out.
Take a man, give them estrogen... say from an estrogen generating hormone, and what do you get?
... A MAN!
He doesn't feminize, he doesn't change significantly.
Mood swings, and crying?
Yeah, very likely some of that, but you don't get a woman.
He won't start wanting to wear dresses, and loving pink, etc etc etc.This whole idea that there are significant biological differences between men and women is a bunch of horse shit, and it's tiring.
There are some biological differences, and we notice them, because the differences are accentuated by our culture, but so many of the differences that we purport, like toy choice, favorite colors, how we handle relationships?
All that is NOT biologically determined.
Men and women separate on those choices out of a desire to conform to their separate subcultures.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105178</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105956</id>
	<title>Re:Dolls and tea sets?</title>
	<author>jellomizer</author>
	<datestamp>1258304040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A lot of this seems like really Bad Science...</p><p>For one there are more women then men.  And the idea that is because of chances men will get killed in war is really simple.  It would seem to be that more women die from giving birth then men died from war.  As well naturally men can keep the population going with a smaller ratio as 1 man can in theory impregnate many women.</p><p>Kids playing with dolls and cross dressing a cultural and when the kids are very young these cultural differences are well established in them.  Especially with modern culture.  Were say 50 years ago a father may legally spank or punish his boy for dressing up for as a girl or at least discourage the activity.  Today we more or less let it pass as it is just considered the kid playing and we know it will not effect the overall development of the child as he learn the cultural norms.</p><p>This seems more like the Psutoscience  to make people panic about the environment because they think the only way we can save the environment is to spread a lot of lies and make people even more irrational then they all ready are.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A lot of this seems like really Bad Science...For one there are more women then men .
And the idea that is because of chances men will get killed in war is really simple .
It would seem to be that more women die from giving birth then men died from war .
As well naturally men can keep the population going with a smaller ratio as 1 man can in theory impregnate many women.Kids playing with dolls and cross dressing a cultural and when the kids are very young these cultural differences are well established in them .
Especially with modern culture .
Were say 50 years ago a father may legally spank or punish his boy for dressing up for as a girl or at least discourage the activity .
Today we more or less let it pass as it is just considered the kid playing and we know it will not effect the overall development of the child as he learn the cultural norms.This seems more like the Psutoscience to make people panic about the environment because they think the only way we can save the environment is to spread a lot of lies and make people even more irrational then they all ready are .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A lot of this seems like really Bad Science...For one there are more women then men.
And the idea that is because of chances men will get killed in war is really simple.
It would seem to be that more women die from giving birth then men died from war.
As well naturally men can keep the population going with a smaller ratio as 1 man can in theory impregnate many women.Kids playing with dolls and cross dressing a cultural and when the kids are very young these cultural differences are well established in them.
Especially with modern culture.
Were say 50 years ago a father may legally spank or punish his boy for dressing up for as a girl or at least discourage the activity.
Today we more or less let it pass as it is just considered the kid playing and we know it will not effect the overall development of the child as he learn the cultural norms.This seems more like the Psutoscience  to make people panic about the environment because they think the only way we can save the environment is to spread a lot of lies and make people even more irrational then they all ready are.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105210</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30106498</id>
	<title>Who would have thought</title>
	<author>ClosedSource</author>
	<datestamp>1258308120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>that environmental factors could lead to children who don't follow their societies' cultural expectations with respect to gender (e.g. girls play with dolls, boys don't).</p><p>If this were true in the more general case of cultural expectations being defied, it might lead to more individuals like RMS. He seems to defy cultural expectations in a number of ways.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>that environmental factors could lead to children who do n't follow their societies ' cultural expectations with respect to gender ( e.g .
girls play with dolls , boys do n't ) .If this were true in the more general case of cultural expectations being defied , it might lead to more individuals like RMS .
He seems to defy cultural expectations in a number of ways .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>that environmental factors could lead to children who don't follow their societies' cultural expectations with respect to gender (e.g.
girls play with dolls, boys don't).If this were true in the more general case of cultural expectations being defied, it might lead to more individuals like RMS.
He seems to defy cultural expectations in a number of ways.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105292</id>
	<title>I get it!!</title>
	<author>ectotherm</author>
	<datestamp>1258296000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>We now have an explanation for the "Metrosexual" trend...</htmltext>
<tokenext>We now have an explanation for the " Metrosexual " trend.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We now have an explanation for the "Metrosexual" trend...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105540</id>
	<title>Re:Dolls and tea sets?</title>
	<author>ComputerGeek01</author>
	<datestamp>1258298100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>They're Not Dolls! They're <i>Action Figures</i>! And we were playing <i>Boston</i> Tea Party not <b>that</b> Tea Party.</htmltext>
<tokenext>They 're Not Dolls !
They 're Action Figures !
And we were playing Boston Tea Party not that Tea Party .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They're Not Dolls!
They're Action Figures!
And we were playing Boston Tea Party not that Tea Party.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105210</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30120344</id>
	<title>Re:Good news for Slashdot crowd</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1258404660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Research shows that men who have bad hygiene are more masculine than their clean-shaven brethren.</i></p><p>Shaving is gay -- you're removing a secondary sexual characteristic. And women who are attracted to bald faces are showing gay tendencies, too.</p><p>I'm amused that seemingly all the Christian preachers are clean shaven when the bible clearly states that making yourself look like a woman is a sin. What could be more feminine than a bald face? Except manboobs, maybe.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Research shows that men who have bad hygiene are more masculine than their clean-shaven brethren.Shaving is gay -- you 're removing a secondary sexual characteristic .
And women who are attracted to bald faces are showing gay tendencies , too.I 'm amused that seemingly all the Christian preachers are clean shaven when the bible clearly states that making yourself look like a woman is a sin .
What could be more feminine than a bald face ?
Except manboobs , maybe .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Research shows that men who have bad hygiene are more masculine than their clean-shaven brethren.Shaving is gay -- you're removing a secondary sexual characteristic.
And women who are attracted to bald faces are showing gay tendencies, too.I'm amused that seemingly all the Christian preachers are clean shaven when the bible clearly states that making yourself look like a woman is a sin.
What could be more feminine than a bald face?
Except manboobs, maybe.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105224</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30109148</id>
	<title>Re:It's the chemicals!? Bollox to that!</title>
	<author>mdwh2</author>
	<datestamp>1258281600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...and just to add, I find it sad that despite taking opposing views, both the OP you replied to, and the article, take the viewpoint that boys being "feminine" is a bad thing. I wish some people would just grow up.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...and just to add , I find it sad that despite taking opposing views , both the OP you replied to , and the article , take the viewpoint that boys being " feminine " is a bad thing .
I wish some people would just grow up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...and just to add, I find it sad that despite taking opposing views, both the OP you replied to, and the article, take the viewpoint that boys being "feminine" is a bad thing.
I wish some people would just grow up.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30107582</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30106324</id>
	<title>Re:Is it such a bad thing?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258306860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wait... so... agriculture?  I mean, I don't know how many farm boys are going to agree with you.</p><p>And... negotiation?  I don't know how many business men are going to agree with you.</p><p>And... art?  I don't think many male musicians will agree with you.</p><p>And... trade?  I don't think the whole male part of the economy will agree with you.</p><p>And... subtlety?  I don't think any male diplomat, spy, marketer, etc. will agree with you.</p><p>Seriously, that is completely ridiculous.  You realize a lot of the top art buyers are rich, competitive men?  Buddha was a man?  Margaret Thatcher was a woman?  Boys have more of a reputation for playing with nature than girls do?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wait... so... agriculture ?
I mean , I do n't know how many farm boys are going to agree with you.And... negotiation ? I do n't know how many business men are going to agree with you.And... art ? I do n't think many male musicians will agree with you.And... trade ? I do n't think the whole male part of the economy will agree with you.And... subtlety ? I do n't think any male diplomat , spy , marketer , etc .
will agree with you.Seriously , that is completely ridiculous .
You realize a lot of the top art buyers are rich , competitive men ?
Buddha was a man ?
Margaret Thatcher was a woman ?
Boys have more of a reputation for playing with nature than girls do ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wait... so... agriculture?
I mean, I don't know how many farm boys are going to agree with you.And... negotiation?  I don't know how many business men are going to agree with you.And... art?  I don't think many male musicians will agree with you.And... trade?  I don't think the whole male part of the economy will agree with you.And... subtlety?  I don't think any male diplomat, spy, marketer, etc.
will agree with you.Seriously, that is completely ridiculous.
You realize a lot of the top art buyers are rich, competitive men?
Buddha was a man?
Margaret Thatcher was a woman?
Boys have more of a reputation for playing with nature than girls do?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105366</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105796</id>
	<title>It's not the chemicals, it's the media</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258302480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>IMHO, the media is mostly to blame for this.  Next time you're bored, start counting how many commercials and sitcoms on TV (and even movies) portray the husband/boyfriend as a complete neanderthal moron and the wife/girlfriend as a level-headed rocket scientist.  And can anyone remember when TLC had stuff worth watching?  Now you are told what not to wear, that gay men know what women want in a straight guy, that it's okay to have eight or more ankle-biters and yet still have a completely dysfunctional family.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>IMHO , the media is mostly to blame for this .
Next time you 're bored , start counting how many commercials and sitcoms on TV ( and even movies ) portray the husband/boyfriend as a complete neanderthal moron and the wife/girlfriend as a level-headed rocket scientist .
And can anyone remember when TLC had stuff worth watching ?
Now you are told what not to wear , that gay men know what women want in a straight guy , that it 's okay to have eight or more ankle-biters and yet still have a completely dysfunctional family .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>IMHO, the media is mostly to blame for this.
Next time you're bored, start counting how many commercials and sitcoms on TV (and even movies) portray the husband/boyfriend as a complete neanderthal moron and the wife/girlfriend as a level-headed rocket scientist.
And can anyone remember when TLC had stuff worth watching?
Now you are told what not to wear, that gay men know what women want in a straight guy, that it's okay to have eight or more ankle-biters and yet still have a completely dysfunctional family.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30108810</id>
	<title>Re:It's not the chemicals, it's the media</title>
	<author>AbRASiON</author>
	<datestamp>1258279080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Exactly this, the man is basically a child on many shows and the woman the adult, the man often begs for sex and certainly doesn't wear the pants.<br>Check out the Simpsons or Everyone loves Raymond (they really don't) these 2 very popular shows influencing people is not a good thing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Exactly this , the man is basically a child on many shows and the woman the adult , the man often begs for sex and certainly does n't wear the pants.Check out the Simpsons or Everyone loves Raymond ( they really do n't ) these 2 very popular shows influencing people is not a good thing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Exactly this, the man is basically a child on many shows and the woman the adult, the man often begs for sex and certainly doesn't wear the pants.Check out the Simpsons or Everyone loves Raymond (they really don't) these 2 very popular shows influencing people is not a good thing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105796</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30109304</id>
	<title>...and?</title>
	<author>fieldstone</author>
	<datestamp>1258282860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is not news. I did a report on the effect of dioxins on human children in my high school Civics class... in 1996.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is not news .
I did a report on the effect of dioxins on human children in my high school Civics class... in 1996 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is not news.
I did a report on the effect of dioxins on human children in my high school Civics class... in 1996.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30111754</id>
	<title>Re:I call "fake science" on this.</title>
	<author>ifwm</author>
	<datestamp>1258303620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As my esteemed colleague has already pointed out, it appears you don't have the slightest idea what the fuck you're talking about, and had already been proven wrong before you even posted.</p><p>Funny, you didn't even know enough about the subject on which you were arrogantly pontificating to know you were completely wrong before you even opened your mouth.</p><p>YES!  We should certainly pay attention to what you say, you clearly try very hard to be accurate!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As my esteemed colleague has already pointed out , it appears you do n't have the slightest idea what the fuck you 're talking about , and had already been proven wrong before you even posted.Funny , you did n't even know enough about the subject on which you were arrogantly pontificating to know you were completely wrong before you even opened your mouth.YES !
We should certainly pay attention to what you say , you clearly try very hard to be accurate !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As my esteemed colleague has already pointed out, it appears you don't have the slightest idea what the fuck you're talking about, and had already been proven wrong before you even posted.Funny, you didn't even know enough about the subject on which you were arrogantly pontificating to know you were completely wrong before you even opened your mouth.YES!
We should certainly pay attention to what you say, you clearly try very hard to be accurate!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30107008</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30113076</id>
	<title>Re:Transsexualism</title>
	<author>angelbunny</author>
	<datestamp>1258364280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think it is important to keep in mind that transsexuals have been around for thousands of years.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think it is important to keep in mind that transsexuals have been around for thousands of years .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think it is important to keep in mind that transsexuals have been around for thousands of years.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105274</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105438</id>
	<title>Re:Gender ratios are not a problem</title>
	<author>StackedCrooked</author>
	<datestamp>1258297260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I would be really great to be one of THOSE very few men!</htmltext>
<tokenext>I would be really great to be one of THOSE very few men !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would be really great to be one of THOSE very few men!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105298</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30113714</id>
	<title>so does this mean</title>
	<author>nimbius</author>
	<datestamp>1258373820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I can officially blame my homosexuality on rubber boots and hand lotion??</htmltext>
<tokenext>I can officially blame my homosexuality on rubber boots and hand lotion ?
?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can officially blame my homosexuality on rubber boots and hand lotion?
?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30106890</id>
	<title>Real men...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258311180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm posting anonymously so my wife doesn't beat my ass...</p><p>Real man are...<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... not socialist pussies. We don't need your wimpy healthcare. We will set our own broken bones -- they way a cave man would do it.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... not pets. Hold your own goddamn purse and stop fucking talking while I'm trying to work.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... like to fuck, fight, and drink. And fuck. No exceptions.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... wonder why there is no cure for the period.</p><p>Cure the Period.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm posting anonymously so my wife does n't beat my ass...Real man are... ... not socialist pussies .
We do n't need your wimpy healthcare .
We will set our own broken bones -- they way a cave man would do it .
... not pets .
Hold your own goddamn purse and stop fucking talking while I 'm trying to work .
... like to fuck , fight , and drink .
And fuck .
No exceptions .
... wonder why there is no cure for the period.Cure the Period .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm posting anonymously so my wife doesn't beat my ass...Real man are... ... not socialist pussies.
We don't need your wimpy healthcare.
We will set our own broken bones -- they way a cave man would do it.
... not pets.
Hold your own goddamn purse and stop fucking talking while I'm trying to work.
... like to fuck, fight, and drink.
And fuck.
No exceptions.
... wonder why there is no cure for the period.Cure the Period.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30106118</id>
	<title>Re:Mixed up: Biological Gender vs. Feminization</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258305300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Woah hold on a minute there cowboy- you totally forget that the sex chromosomes have only partial influence even on sexual organ differentiation. There are XX males and XY females out there. Hormones during early development make more difference than the genes themselves!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Woah hold on a minute there cowboy- you totally forget that the sex chromosomes have only partial influence even on sexual organ differentiation .
There are XX males and XY females out there .
Hormones during early development make more difference than the genes themselves !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Woah hold on a minute there cowboy- you totally forget that the sex chromosomes have only partial influence even on sexual organ differentiation.
There are XX males and XY females out there.
Hormones during early development make more difference than the genes themselves!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105510</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105746</id>
	<title>What are the trade-offs?</title>
	<author>davidwr</author>
	<datestamp>1258300020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When you publicize the harm something can do, you also need to publicize the benefits compared to the next-best option.</p><p>[The numbers below are for illustration only and don't reflect any real numbers - i.e. they are totally made up]</p><p>"Oh noze, we must ban this or that chemical because 0.1\% of our boys will grow up effeminate or be born with female parts" is alarming.  But a statement saying "while these chemicals have their downsides, they save an estimated 20 lives a year" provides some context, and can shift the debate from "OMG ban them immediately" to "let's fund research into a better way to save those same 20 lives."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When you publicize the harm something can do , you also need to publicize the benefits compared to the next-best option .
[ The numbers below are for illustration only and do n't reflect any real numbers - i.e .
they are totally made up ] " Oh noze , we must ban this or that chemical because 0.1 \ % of our boys will grow up effeminate or be born with female parts " is alarming .
But a statement saying " while these chemicals have their downsides , they save an estimated 20 lives a year " provides some context , and can shift the debate from " OMG ban them immediately " to " let 's fund research into a better way to save those same 20 lives .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When you publicize the harm something can do, you also need to publicize the benefits compared to the next-best option.
[The numbers below are for illustration only and don't reflect any real numbers - i.e.
they are totally made up]"Oh noze, we must ban this or that chemical because 0.1\% of our boys will grow up effeminate or be born with female parts" is alarming.
But a statement saying "while these chemicals have their downsides, they save an estimated 20 lives a year" provides some context, and can shift the debate from "OMG ban them immediately" to "let's fund research into a better way to save those same 20 lives.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30109402</id>
	<title>Re:It's the chemicals!? Bollox to that!</title>
	<author>corrie</author>
	<datestamp>1258283460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think of myself</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think of myself</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think of myself</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105344</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105344</id>
	<title>Re:It's the chemicals!? Bollox to that!</title>
	<author>Idiomatick</author>
	<datestamp>1258296540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Manly role models offend me far more.<br> <br>I can aspire to have anger issues? Be hero and join the military where I can shoot people? Be a local hero and hit and or throw and or catch a ball? Maybe something involving beating up and or shooting badguys.<br> <br>The other option for males on TV are slobs or rude pigs. Almost all stupid.<br> <br>Also, child rearing isn't a particularly female position beyond infancy. Girls simply got stuck with it because they gave birth so its their responsibility. And the idea that violence and aggression is a manly thing. Or that it is something we should hope to aspire to is complete BS.<br> <br>When you hear the word 'manly' what are your first thoughts, I'd like to know what<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/.'s reaction to the word is?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Manly role models offend me far more .
I can aspire to have anger issues ?
Be hero and join the military where I can shoot people ?
Be a local hero and hit and or throw and or catch a ball ?
Maybe something involving beating up and or shooting badguys .
The other option for males on TV are slobs or rude pigs .
Almost all stupid .
Also , child rearing is n't a particularly female position beyond infancy .
Girls simply got stuck with it because they gave birth so its their responsibility .
And the idea that violence and aggression is a manly thing .
Or that it is something we should hope to aspire to is complete BS .
When you hear the word 'manly ' what are your first thoughts , I 'd like to know what / .
's reaction to the word is ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Manly role models offend me far more.
I can aspire to have anger issues?
Be hero and join the military where I can shoot people?
Be a local hero and hit and or throw and or catch a ball?
Maybe something involving beating up and or shooting badguys.
The other option for males on TV are slobs or rude pigs.
Almost all stupid.
Also, child rearing isn't a particularly female position beyond infancy.
Girls simply got stuck with it because they gave birth so its their responsibility.
And the idea that violence and aggression is a manly thing.
Or that it is something we should hope to aspire to is complete BS.
When you hear the word 'manly' what are your first thoughts, I'd like to know what /.
's reaction to the word is?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105178</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105846</id>
	<title>Finally</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258303080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I guess this finally explains all of those awful bands like Fallout Boy and My Chemical Romance.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I guess this finally explains all of those awful bands like Fallout Boy and My Chemical Romance .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I guess this finally explains all of those awful bands like Fallout Boy and My Chemical Romance.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30108698</id>
	<title>And yet dancing around the real point</title>
	<author>SEE</author>
	<datestamp>1258278360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The primary and most powerful source of feminizing chemicals in our water is the vast quantities dumped into our water supply in the urine of women on the birth control pill.  Anyone who considers feminizing chemicals a real problem (instead of using it as an excuse to go after industry) would be seeking, first and foremost, to ban the birth control pill.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The primary and most powerful source of feminizing chemicals in our water is the vast quantities dumped into our water supply in the urine of women on the birth control pill .
Anyone who considers feminizing chemicals a real problem ( instead of using it as an excuse to go after industry ) would be seeking , first and foremost , to ban the birth control pill .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The primary and most powerful source of feminizing chemicals in our water is the vast quantities dumped into our water supply in the urine of women on the birth control pill.
Anyone who considers feminizing chemicals a real problem (instead of using it as an excuse to go after industry) would be seeking, first and foremost, to ban the birth control pill.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30113174</id>
	<title>I for one welcome ...</title>
	<author>recrudescence</author>
	<datestamp>1258365600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I for one welcome the increasing numbers of our feminine overlords. <br>
Also, obligatory <a href="http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&amp;id=1479#comic" title="smbc-comics.com" rel="nofollow"> smbc comic </a> [smbc-comics.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>I for one welcome the increasing numbers of our feminine overlords .
Also , obligatory smbc comic [ smbc-comics.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I for one welcome the increasing numbers of our feminine overlords.
Also, obligatory  smbc comic  [smbc-comics.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105444</id>
	<title>Kids Abosrb More "butylparaben"</title>
	<author>aplusjimages</author>
	<datestamp>1258297380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"I love my dead gay son"</htmltext>
<tokenext>" I love my dead gay son "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"I love my dead gay son"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105274</id>
	<title>Transsexualism</title>
	<author>BlueParrot</author>
	<datestamp>1258295820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>One theory about why transsexualism occurs has been that it is a hormone induced neurological change that occurs early in development. While science is far from concluded on weather this is the case, I can from personal experience state that it is not a fun place to be. If there's even a small chance that environmental toxins is contributing to its prevalence then this is a very serious matter and definitely justifies a careful approach on restricting the use of chemicals that can influence gender development.</p><p>To give a slight idea of how strong an effect these things can have on a persons general wellbeing, a Dutch study found 20\% of female to male transsexuals had attempted suicide prior to initiating hormone treatment. In comparison the figures following treatment with androgens were just a few percent. Now try to imagine what the effects might be when you expose an entire population to a diffuse cocktail of chemicals that interfere with gender development and you should start feeling a bit uncomfortable about the situation...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>One theory about why transsexualism occurs has been that it is a hormone induced neurological change that occurs early in development .
While science is far from concluded on weather this is the case , I can from personal experience state that it is not a fun place to be .
If there 's even a small chance that environmental toxins is contributing to its prevalence then this is a very serious matter and definitely justifies a careful approach on restricting the use of chemicals that can influence gender development.To give a slight idea of how strong an effect these things can have on a persons general wellbeing , a Dutch study found 20 \ % of female to male transsexuals had attempted suicide prior to initiating hormone treatment .
In comparison the figures following treatment with androgens were just a few percent .
Now try to imagine what the effects might be when you expose an entire population to a diffuse cocktail of chemicals that interfere with gender development and you should start feeling a bit uncomfortable about the situation.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One theory about why transsexualism occurs has been that it is a hormone induced neurological change that occurs early in development.
While science is far from concluded on weather this is the case, I can from personal experience state that it is not a fun place to be.
If there's even a small chance that environmental toxins is contributing to its prevalence then this is a very serious matter and definitely justifies a careful approach on restricting the use of chemicals that can influence gender development.To give a slight idea of how strong an effect these things can have on a persons general wellbeing, a Dutch study found 20\% of female to male transsexuals had attempted suicide prior to initiating hormone treatment.
In comparison the figures following treatment with androgens were just a few percent.
Now try to imagine what the effects might be when you expose an entire population to a diffuse cocktail of chemicals that interfere with gender development and you should start feeling a bit uncomfortable about the situation...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105510</id>
	<title>Mixed up: Biological Gender vs. Feminization</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258297800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This article does not make sense.</p><p>Biological gender (dictated by the presence of an Y vs. X chromosome) is irrevocably determined at the moment a spermium merges with an egg, excluding very rare cases of extra chromosomes etc. External pollution by endocrine disruptor chemicals plays no role in this.</p><p>Exhibition of female traits in biological males is a completely different story, and there is increasing evidence that this may be linked to certain classes of chemicals.</p><p>However, I am not aware of any studies which link these chemicals to decreased viability of Y-sperm, which could be a reason for the decline of male births. The number of biological males feminized to a degree that they pass and spend their lifes as females, and is however far too low to account for this change.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This article does not make sense.Biological gender ( dictated by the presence of an Y vs. X chromosome ) is irrevocably determined at the moment a spermium merges with an egg , excluding very rare cases of extra chromosomes etc .
External pollution by endocrine disruptor chemicals plays no role in this.Exhibition of female traits in biological males is a completely different story , and there is increasing evidence that this may be linked to certain classes of chemicals.However , I am not aware of any studies which link these chemicals to decreased viability of Y-sperm , which could be a reason for the decline of male births .
The number of biological males feminized to a degree that they pass and spend their lifes as females , and is however far too low to account for this change .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This article does not make sense.Biological gender (dictated by the presence of an Y vs. X chromosome) is irrevocably determined at the moment a spermium merges with an egg, excluding very rare cases of extra chromosomes etc.
External pollution by endocrine disruptor chemicals plays no role in this.Exhibition of female traits in biological males is a completely different story, and there is increasing evidence that this may be linked to certain classes of chemicals.However, I am not aware of any studies which link these chemicals to decreased viability of Y-sperm, which could be a reason for the decline of male births.
The number of biological males feminized to a degree that they pass and spend their lifes as females, and is however far too low to account for this change.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105298</id>
	<title>Gender ratios are not a problem</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258296060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>While it's easy to laugh at the "positive" aspects of being one of very few men -- it should be noted on a purely biological level that far fewer than 50\% (or even 10\%) men are needed to carry on the species.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>While it 's easy to laugh at the " positive " aspects of being one of very few men -- it should be noted on a purely biological level that far fewer than 50 \ % ( or even 10 \ % ) men are needed to carry on the species .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While it's easy to laugh at the "positive" aspects of being one of very few men -- it should be noted on a purely biological level that far fewer than 50\% (or even 10\%) men are needed to carry on the species.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30112524</id>
	<title>It is mobile phones?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258313580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Most radar operators had children who were girls. Most antena engineers agree that there is some genetic effect associated with widespread use of mobile phones that is likely to cause more girls than boys being born. I don't have time to look up the relevant evidence, posting such a bold claim - but it is comments and I hope someone can confirm or deny this who has more time.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Most radar operators had children who were girls .
Most antena engineers agree that there is some genetic effect associated with widespread use of mobile phones that is likely to cause more girls than boys being born .
I do n't have time to look up the relevant evidence , posting such a bold claim - but it is comments and I hope someone can confirm or deny this who has more time .
: - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most radar operators had children who were girls.
Most antena engineers agree that there is some genetic effect associated with widespread use of mobile phones that is likely to cause more girls than boys being born.
I don't have time to look up the relevant evidence, posting such a bold claim - but it is comments and I hope someone can confirm or deny this who has more time.
:-)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105558</id>
	<title>Who cares?  This is a good thing..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258298160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>With all the girly men out there, that just leaves more women for the real men out there.. *Salutes the morning wood*  I'm glad to be an american.  Now all eurobabes line up for you 100\% USDA Beef!</htmltext>
<tokenext>With all the girly men out there , that just leaves more women for the real men out there.. * Salutes the morning wood * I 'm glad to be an american .
Now all eurobabes line up for you 100 \ % USDA Beef !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>With all the girly men out there, that just leaves more women for the real men out there.. *Salutes the morning wood*  I'm glad to be an american.
Now all eurobabes line up for you 100\% USDA Beef!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30123108</id>
	<title>Re:what about chemicals that are masculinizing gir</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258372200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, cultural responses to civil rights are definitely to blame for decreased penis size and physical deformities right?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , cultural responses to civil rights are definitely to blame for decreased penis size and physical deformities right ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, cultural responses to civil rights are definitely to blame for decreased penis size and physical deformities right?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105696</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105696</id>
	<title>what about chemicals that are masculinizing girls?</title>
	<author>VoidEngineer</author>
	<datestamp>1258299540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>These reports come out every few years  (re: DDT, et al.), and while they're not strictly incorrect, they tend to look at a very incomplete picture of what is going on.  To be perfectly blunt, there's sexism going on in that these reports focus on just the environmental impact of chemicals on boys, and don't consider the larger picture of chemical impact on children in general.
<br> <br>
Anyhow, if you take a look at the steroidgenesis diagram, you'll notice that testosterone is a precursor of oestrogen by way of aromatase:
<br> <br>
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Steroidogenesis.svg" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Steroidogenesis.svg</a> [wikipedia.org] <br>
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aromatase" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aromatase</a> [wikipedia.org]
<br> <br>
Now, for those people who remember their organic chemistry and stoichiometry, rates of conversion reactions are increased with catalysts, and decreased with modulators.  So, while aromatase will increase the rate at which testosterone converts into estrogen, an aromatase inhibitor will decrease conversion of testosterone.
<br> <br>
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aromatase\_Inhibitor" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aromatase\_Inhibitor</a> [wikipedia.org]
<br> <br>
And it turns out that Aromatase Inhibitors are naturally occurring:
<br> <br>
<a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?\_ob=ArticleURL&amp;\_udi=B8JGN-4TWSRR1-1&amp;\_user=10&amp;\_rdoc=1&amp;\_fmt=&amp;\_orig=search&amp;\_sort=d&amp;\_docanchor=&amp;view=c&amp;\_searchStrId=1093611464&amp;\_rerunOrigin=google&amp;\_acct=C000050221&amp;\_version=1&amp;\_urlVersion=0&amp;\_userid=10&amp;md5=2bb4c9b03794595de88508b47078c134" title="sciencedirect.com">http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?\_ob=ArticleURL&amp;\_udi=B8JGN-4TWSRR1-1&amp;\_user=10&amp;\_rdoc=1&amp;\_fmt=&amp;\_orig=search&amp;\_sort=d&amp;\_docanchor=&amp;view=c&amp;\_searchStrId=1093611464&amp;\_rerunOrigin=google&amp;\_acct=C000050221&amp;\_version=1&amp;\_urlVersion=0&amp;\_userid=10&amp;md5=2bb4c9b03794595de88508b47078c134</a> [sciencedirect.com]
<br> <br>
<a href="http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.fieldmuseum.org/research\_collections/pritzker\_lab/pritzker/people/people\_images/stilbocarpapolaris.jpg&amp;imgrefurl=http://www.fieldmuseum.org/research\_collections/pritzker\_lab/pritzker/people/alumni\_mitchell.html&amp;usg=\_\_Xc\_RyM3WV\_KmlfwEp0KCwul\_DAk=&amp;h=137&amp;w=200&amp;sz=9&amp;hl=en&amp;start=7&amp;um=1&amp;tbnid=jlXt6kpeBMYsJM:&amp;tbnh=71&amp;tbnw=104&amp;prev=/images\%3Fq\%3DBrassaiopsis\%2Bglomerulata\%26hl\%3Den\%26client\%3Dfirefox-a\%26rls\%3Dorg.mozilla:en-US:official\%26sa\%3DN\%26um\%3D1" title="google.com">http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.fieldmuseum.org/research\_collections/pritzker\_lab/pritzker/people/people\_images/stilbocarpapolaris.jpg&amp;imgrefurl=http://www.fieldmuseum.org/research\_collections/pritzker\_lab/pritzker/people/alumni\_mitchell.html&amp;usg=\_\_Xc\_RyM3WV\_KmlfwEp0KCwul\_DAk=&amp;h=137&amp;w=200&amp;sz=9&amp;hl=en&amp;start=7&amp;um=1&amp;tbnid=jlXt6kpeBMYsJM:&amp;tbnh=71&amp;tbnw=104&amp;prev=/images\%3Fq\%3DBrassaiopsis\%2Bglomerulata\%26hl\%3Den\%26client\%3Dfirefox-a\%26rls\%3Dorg.mozilla:en-US:official\%26sa\%3DN\%26um\%3D1</a> [google.com]
<br> <br>
And there's a growing list of known aromatase inhibitors:
<br> <br>
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exemestane" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exemestane</a> [wikipedia.org] <br>
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anastrozole" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anastrozole</a> [wikipedia.org] <br>
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letrozole" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letrozole</a> [wikipedia.org] <br>
<br> <br>
So, simply put...  what about the environmental chemicals that are masculinizing girls?  Is it really just a matter of plastics feminizing boys?  Or does it go both ways?  Is it a matter of environmental toxicity in general?
<br> <br>
Lastly, I'd also bring up the question whether feminization of boys is <i>primarily</i> caused by environmental chemicals, or if it's driven be completely different factors, such as 1) a cultural response to civil rights access for women, 2) decreased opportunities for war caused by nuclear detante, or 3) need for peaceful co-existance due to worldwide population increases a</htmltext>
<tokenext>These reports come out every few years ( re : DDT , et al .
) , and while they 're not strictly incorrect , they tend to look at a very incomplete picture of what is going on .
To be perfectly blunt , there 's sexism going on in that these reports focus on just the environmental impact of chemicals on boys , and do n't consider the larger picture of chemical impact on children in general .
Anyhow , if you take a look at the steroidgenesis diagram , you 'll notice that testosterone is a precursor of oestrogen by way of aromatase : http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File : Steroidogenesis.svg [ wikipedia.org ] http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aromatase [ wikipedia.org ] Now , for those people who remember their organic chemistry and stoichiometry , rates of conversion reactions are increased with catalysts , and decreased with modulators .
So , while aromatase will increase the rate at which testosterone converts into estrogen , an aromatase inhibitor will decrease conversion of testosterone .
http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aromatase \ _Inhibitor [ wikipedia.org ] And it turns out that Aromatase Inhibitors are naturally occurring : http : //www.sciencedirect.com/science ? \ _ob = ArticleURL&amp; \ _udi = B8JGN-4TWSRR1-1&amp; \ _user = 10&amp; \ _rdoc = 1&amp; \ _fmt = &amp; \ _orig = search&amp; \ _sort = d&amp; \ _docanchor = &amp;view = c&amp; \ _searchStrId = 1093611464&amp; \ _rerunOrigin = google&amp; \ _acct = C000050221&amp; \ _version = 1&amp; \ _urlVersion = 0&amp; \ _userid = 10&amp;md5 = 2bb4c9b03794595de88508b47078c134 [ sciencedirect.com ] http : //images.google.com/imgres ? imgurl = http : //www.fieldmuseum.org/research \ _collections/pritzker \ _lab/pritzker/people/people \ _images/stilbocarpapolaris.jpg&amp;imgrefurl = http : //www.fieldmuseum.org/research \ _collections/pritzker \ _lab/pritzker/people/alumni \ _mitchell.html&amp;usg = \ _ \ _Xc \ _RyM3WV \ _KmlfwEp0KCwul \ _DAk = &amp;h = 137&amp;w = 200&amp;sz = 9&amp;hl = en&amp;start = 7&amp;um = 1&amp;tbnid = jlXt6kpeBMYsJM : &amp;tbnh = 71&amp;tbnw = 104&amp;prev = /images \ % 3Fq \ % 3DBrassaiopsis \ % 2Bglomerulata \ % 26hl \ % 3Den \ % 26client \ % 3Dfirefox-a \ % 26rls \ % 3Dorg.mozilla : en-US : official \ % 26sa \ % 3DN \ % 26um \ % 3D1 [ google.com ] And there 's a growing list of known aromatase inhibitors : http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exemestane [ wikipedia.org ] http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anastrozole [ wikipedia.org ] http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letrozole [ wikipedia.org ] So , simply put... what about the environmental chemicals that are masculinizing girls ?
Is it really just a matter of plastics feminizing boys ?
Or does it go both ways ?
Is it a matter of environmental toxicity in general ?
Lastly , I 'd also bring up the question whether feminization of boys is primarily caused by environmental chemicals , or if it 's driven be completely different factors , such as 1 ) a cultural response to civil rights access for women , 2 ) decreased opportunities for war caused by nuclear detante , or 3 ) need for peaceful co-existance due to worldwide population increases a</tokentext>
<sentencetext>These reports come out every few years  (re: DDT, et al.
), and while they're not strictly incorrect, they tend to look at a very incomplete picture of what is going on.
To be perfectly blunt, there's sexism going on in that these reports focus on just the environmental impact of chemicals on boys, and don't consider the larger picture of chemical impact on children in general.
Anyhow, if you take a look at the steroidgenesis diagram, you'll notice that testosterone is a precursor of oestrogen by way of aromatase:
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Steroidogenesis.svg [wikipedia.org] 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aromatase [wikipedia.org]
 
Now, for those people who remember their organic chemistry and stoichiometry, rates of conversion reactions are increased with catalysts, and decreased with modulators.
So, while aromatase will increase the rate at which testosterone converts into estrogen, an aromatase inhibitor will decrease conversion of testosterone.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aromatase\_Inhibitor [wikipedia.org]
 
And it turns out that Aromatase Inhibitors are naturally occurring:
 
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?\_ob=ArticleURL&amp;\_udi=B8JGN-4TWSRR1-1&amp;\_user=10&amp;\_rdoc=1&amp;\_fmt=&amp;\_orig=search&amp;\_sort=d&amp;\_docanchor=&amp;view=c&amp;\_searchStrId=1093611464&amp;\_rerunOrigin=google&amp;\_acct=C000050221&amp;\_version=1&amp;\_urlVersion=0&amp;\_userid=10&amp;md5=2bb4c9b03794595de88508b47078c134 [sciencedirect.com]
 
http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.fieldmuseum.org/research\_collections/pritzker\_lab/pritzker/people/people\_images/stilbocarpapolaris.jpg&amp;imgrefurl=http://www.fieldmuseum.org/research\_collections/pritzker\_lab/pritzker/people/alumni\_mitchell.html&amp;usg=\_\_Xc\_RyM3WV\_KmlfwEp0KCwul\_DAk=&amp;h=137&amp;w=200&amp;sz=9&amp;hl=en&amp;start=7&amp;um=1&amp;tbnid=jlXt6kpeBMYsJM:&amp;tbnh=71&amp;tbnw=104&amp;prev=/images\%3Fq\%3DBrassaiopsis\%2Bglomerulata\%26hl\%3Den\%26client\%3Dfirefox-a\%26rls\%3Dorg.mozilla:en-US:official\%26sa\%3DN\%26um\%3D1 [google.com]
 
And there's a growing list of known aromatase inhibitors:
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exemestane [wikipedia.org] 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anastrozole [wikipedia.org] 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letrozole [wikipedia.org] 
 
So, simply put...  what about the environmental chemicals that are masculinizing girls?
Is it really just a matter of plastics feminizing boys?
Or does it go both ways?
Is it a matter of environmental toxicity in general?
Lastly, I'd also bring up the question whether feminization of boys is primarily caused by environmental chemicals, or if it's driven be completely different factors, such as 1) a cultural response to civil rights access for women, 2) decreased opportunities for war caused by nuclear detante, or 3) need for peaceful co-existance due to worldwide population increases a</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30116890</id>
	<title>Re:Mixed up: Biological Gender vs. Feminization</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258393860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Most interesting. Thanks for the read.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Most interesting .
Thanks for the read .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most interesting.
Thanks for the read.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30108252</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105568</id>
	<title>Re:It's the chemicals!? Bollox to that!</title>
	<author>Narpak</author>
	<datestamp>1258298280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>What? The nerve! Everyone knows fathers are supposed to ignore their children at all times, even if they're on fire.</p></div><p>When my siblings and I were growing up our father would deliberately put us on fire to "toughen us up a bit".</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What ?
The nerve !
Everyone knows fathers are supposed to ignore their children at all times , even if they 're on fire.When my siblings and I were growing up our father would deliberately put us on fire to " toughen us up a bit " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What?
The nerve!
Everyone knows fathers are supposed to ignore their children at all times, even if they're on fire.When my siblings and I were growing up our father would deliberately put us on fire to "toughen us up a bit".
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105222</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105224</id>
	<title>Good news for Slashdot crowd</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258295220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Proportion of females is rising.  This is good news.
<br>
Research shows that men who have bad hygiene are more masculine than their clean-shaven brethren.  Again, fellow Slashdotters, this is good news.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Proportion of females is rising .
This is good news .
Research shows that men who have bad hygiene are more masculine than their clean-shaven brethren .
Again , fellow Slashdotters , this is good news .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Proportion of females is rising.
This is good news.
Research shows that men who have bad hygiene are more masculine than their clean-shaven brethren.
Again, fellow Slashdotters, this is good news.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30110586</id>
	<title>Re:It's the chemicals!? Bollox to that!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258292160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; You could also argue there are other gender differences that make women more effective at caring for children that aren't just the result of socialization.</p><p>The ability to lactate would rank pretty high up there, at least for infants.  There's a good reason the strategy of having the man work and the woman care for the children has been used for thousands of years.  That's not to say that there aren't other ways of doing things, just that it's pretty damned effective and people shouldn't let politics dissuade them if that's how they both want to do things.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; You could also argue there are other gender differences that make women more effective at caring for children that are n't just the result of socialization.The ability to lactate would rank pretty high up there , at least for infants .
There 's a good reason the strategy of having the man work and the woman care for the children has been used for thousands of years .
That 's not to say that there are n't other ways of doing things , just that it 's pretty damned effective and people should n't let politics dissuade them if that 's how they both want to do things .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; You could also argue there are other gender differences that make women more effective at caring for children that aren't just the result of socialization.The ability to lactate would rank pretty high up there, at least for infants.
There's a good reason the strategy of having the man work and the woman care for the children has been used for thousands of years.
That's not to say that there aren't other ways of doing things, just that it's pretty damned effective and people shouldn't let politics dissuade them if that's how they both want to do things.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105702</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30108310</id>
	<title>Re:A bonus for men</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258276020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>i foresee a generation where lesbianism and artificial insemination are chic.</p><p>interestingly my captcha is "courting."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>i foresee a generation where lesbianism and artificial insemination are chic.interestingly my captcha is " courting .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>i foresee a generation where lesbianism and artificial insemination are chic.interestingly my captcha is "courting.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105446</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30107000</id>
	<title>Bill?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258312140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This explains Tokyo Hotel band members I believe.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This explains Tokyo Hotel band members I believe .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This explains Tokyo Hotel band members I believe.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105804</id>
	<title>Re:Gender ratios are not a problem</title>
	<author>ObsessiveMathsFreak</author>
	<datestamp>1258302540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>it should be noted on a purely biological level that far fewer than 50\% (or even 10\%) men are needed to carry on the species.</p></div></blockquote><p>Yes, but it should also be noted that on a purely practical level each child requires three pairs of hands and four pairs of eyes to raise appropriately.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>it should be noted on a purely biological level that far fewer than 50 \ % ( or even 10 \ % ) men are needed to carry on the species.Yes , but it should also be noted that on a purely practical level each child requires three pairs of hands and four pairs of eyes to raise appropriately .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>it should be noted on a purely biological level that far fewer than 50\% (or even 10\%) men are needed to carry on the species.Yes, but it should also be noted that on a purely practical level each child requires three pairs of hands and four pairs of eyes to raise appropriately.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105298</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105952</id>
	<title>Re:It's the chemicals!? Bollox to that!</title>
	<author>VoidCrow</author>
	<datestamp>1258304040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Mmm...</p><p>A lot of negative associations.</p><p>Lack of empathy.<br>Sex is everything.<br>Aggression.<br>Bullying (particularly in packs).<br>The Bloke vibe.</p><p>But that's unfair, and I'm hardly a good person to ask. I'm lesbian, I hate my father. I have some good male friends, and they embody a lot of very praiseworthy qualities, and none of the above-stated negative ones.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Mmm...A lot of negative associations.Lack of empathy.Sex is everything.Aggression.Bullying ( particularly in packs ) .The Bloke vibe.But that 's unfair , and I 'm hardly a good person to ask .
I 'm lesbian , I hate my father .
I have some good male friends , and they embody a lot of very praiseworthy qualities , and none of the above-stated negative ones .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mmm...A lot of negative associations.Lack of empathy.Sex is everything.Aggression.Bullying (particularly in packs).The Bloke vibe.But that's unfair, and I'm hardly a good person to ask.
I'm lesbian, I hate my father.
I have some good male friends, and they embody a lot of very praiseworthy qualities, and none of the above-stated negative ones.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105344</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105222</id>
	<title>Re:It's the chemicals!? Bollox to that!</title>
	<author>FlyingSquidStudios</author>
	<datestamp>1258295220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>they'll be expected to do their share of the child rearing</p></div><p>What? The nerve! Everyone knows fathers are supposed to ignore their children at all times, even if they're on fire.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>they 'll be expected to do their share of the child rearingWhat ?
The nerve !
Everyone knows fathers are supposed to ignore their children at all times , even if they 're on fire .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>they'll be expected to do their share of the child rearingWhat?
The nerve!
Everyone knows fathers are supposed to ignore their children at all times, even if they're on fire.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105178</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105828</id>
	<title>Re:Is it such a bad thing?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258302900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Whereas these are more associated with <b>feminine</b> elements, these come to mind: </p><ul> <li>subtlety</li><li>compassion</li><li>trade</li><li>art</li><li>negotiation</li><li>nature</li><li>agriculture</li><li>thoughtfulness</li></ul><p>IMHO, the feminine model is a far better fit for 21st century culture and technology.</p></div><p>What a load of shit! This reads like the default characteristics for a female RPG character. Go back to playing WoW asshole!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Whereas these are more associated with feminine elements , these come to mind : subtletycompassiontradeartnegotiationnatureagriculturethoughtfulnessIMHO , the feminine model is a far better fit for 21st century culture and technology.What a load of shit !
This reads like the default characteristics for a female RPG character .
Go back to playing WoW asshole !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Whereas these are more associated with feminine elements, these come to mind:  subtletycompassiontradeartnegotiationnatureagriculturethoughtfulnessIMHO, the feminine model is a far better fit for 21st century culture and technology.What a load of shit!
This reads like the default characteristics for a female RPG character.
Go back to playing WoW asshole!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105366</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105178</id>
	<title>It's the chemicals!? Bollox to that!</title>
	<author>syousef</author>
	<datestamp>1258294860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah it has nothing to do with forcing boys to engage in more timid play, impressing upon them that when they grow older they'll be expected to do their share of the child rearing, presenting them with effeminate roll models, balking at allowing them to take risks or play "politically incorrect" games, keeping them away from violence and agression more than any previous generation, or putting them in female clothing for a giggle. Nothing to do with that at all. It's the chemicals!</p><p>GIMME A BREAK.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah it has nothing to do with forcing boys to engage in more timid play , impressing upon them that when they grow older they 'll be expected to do their share of the child rearing , presenting them with effeminate roll models , balking at allowing them to take risks or play " politically incorrect " games , keeping them away from violence and agression more than any previous generation , or putting them in female clothing for a giggle .
Nothing to do with that at all .
It 's the chemicals ! GIM ME A BREAK .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah it has nothing to do with forcing boys to engage in more timid play, impressing upon them that when they grow older they'll be expected to do their share of the child rearing, presenting them with effeminate roll models, balking at allowing them to take risks or play "politically incorrect" games, keeping them away from violence and agression more than any previous generation, or putting them in female clothing for a giggle.
Nothing to do with that at all.
It's the chemicals!GIMME A BREAK.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30107102</id>
	<title>Re:It's not the chemicals, it's the media</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258312740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Something else I find Insightful is that the rise in the number of gay could be due to chemical products.</p><p>There's a huge class action ahead if the gay realise they've been drugged!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Something else I find Insightful is that the rise in the number of gay could be due to chemical products.There 's a huge class action ahead if the gay realise they 've been drugged !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Something else I find Insightful is that the rise in the number of gay could be due to chemical products.There's a huge class action ahead if the gay realise they've been drugged!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105796</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30109926</id>
	<title>Fathers and Children</title>
	<author>DesScorp</author>
	<datestamp>1258287180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p><div class="quote"><p>they'll be expected to do their share of the child rearing</p></div><p>What? The nerve! Everyone knows fathers are supposed to ignore their children at all times, even if they're on fire.</p></div><p>You can still help with the child rearing without being a total wuss puss. I change diapers if my wife is busy, and help with laundry, and have taken to fixing dinner sometimes (which my wife <i>really</i> appreciates). But families still need fathers to be men, not androgynous daddy mommies. The need for males isn't just a cultural construction, it's also a biological need... see <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704754804574491811861197926.html" title="wsj.com">This is your brain without Dad</a> [wsj.com]. There are benefits to having masculine fathers at home far beyond simple cultural norms.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>they 'll be expected to do their share of the child rearingWhat ?
The nerve !
Everyone knows fathers are supposed to ignore their children at all times , even if they 're on fire.You can still help with the child rearing without being a total wuss puss .
I change diapers if my wife is busy , and help with laundry , and have taken to fixing dinner sometimes ( which my wife really appreciates ) .
But families still need fathers to be men , not androgynous daddy mommies .
The need for males is n't just a cultural construction , it 's also a biological need... see This is your brain without Dad [ wsj.com ] .
There are benefits to having masculine fathers at home far beyond simple cultural norms .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>they'll be expected to do their share of the child rearingWhat?
The nerve!
Everyone knows fathers are supposed to ignore their children at all times, even if they're on fire.You can still help with the child rearing without being a total wuss puss.
I change diapers if my wife is busy, and help with laundry, and have taken to fixing dinner sometimes (which my wife really appreciates).
But families still need fathers to be men, not androgynous daddy mommies.
The need for males isn't just a cultural construction, it's also a biological need... see This is your brain without Dad [wsj.com].
There are benefits to having masculine fathers at home far beyond simple cultural norms.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105222</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105560</id>
	<title>Evidence first found in Hawaii</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258298220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Way back on August 4, 1961.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Way back on August 4 , 1961 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Way back on August 4, 1961.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105644</id>
	<title>Re:It's the chemicals!? Bollox to that!</title>
	<author>buddyglass</author>
	<datestamp>1258299120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I can see those things socializing certain behaviors. I can't see them lowering male sperm count, which afaik has been observed over time.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I can see those things socializing certain behaviors .
I ca n't see them lowering male sperm count , which afaik has been observed over time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can see those things socializing certain behaviors.
I can't see them lowering male sperm count, which afaik has been observed over time.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105178</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105242</id>
	<title>So that explains</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258295520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>commander taco</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>commander taco</tokentext>
<sentencetext>commander taco</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105188</id>
	<title>Denmark?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258294920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I assume they mean the Netherlands, since the Rotterdam Erasmus University is in the Netherlands.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I assume they mean the Netherlands , since the Rotterdam Erasmus University is in the Netherlands .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I assume they mean the Netherlands, since the Rotterdam Erasmus University is in the Netherlands.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30110984</id>
	<title>Misunderstanding Evolution</title>
	<author>davidbofinger</author>
	<datestamp>1258296240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Normally 106 boys are born for every 100 girls: it is thought to be nature's way of making up for the fact that men were more likely to be killed hunting or in conflict.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
Someone doesn't understand evolution. The line above shows they imagine that nature tries to make things come out well, whereas in fact nature doesn't care if things come out well because nature isn't a person. What really happens is that the most efficient way to pass on your genes is to make equal parental investment in boys and girls. Genes that do this get passed on, genes that don't die out, so the ones we see around us are the ones that do. I'm a little surprised the ratio is as big as 106:100, though.
</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Normally 106 boys are born for every 100 girls : it is thought to be nature 's way of making up for the fact that men were more likely to be killed hunting or in conflict .
Someone does n't understand evolution .
The line above shows they imagine that nature tries to make things come out well , whereas in fact nature does n't care if things come out well because nature is n't a person .
What really happens is that the most efficient way to pass on your genes is to make equal parental investment in boys and girls .
Genes that do this get passed on , genes that do n't die out , so the ones we see around us are the ones that do .
I 'm a little surprised the ratio is as big as 106 : 100 , though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Normally 106 boys are born for every 100 girls: it is thought to be nature's way of making up for the fact that men were more likely to be killed hunting or in conflict.
Someone doesn't understand evolution.
The line above shows they imagine that nature tries to make things come out well, whereas in fact nature doesn't care if things come out well because nature isn't a person.
What really happens is that the most efficient way to pass on your genes is to make equal parental investment in boys and girls.
Genes that do this get passed on, genes that don't die out, so the ones we see around us are the ones that do.
I'm a little surprised the ratio is as big as 106:100, though.

	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105332</id>
	<title>Re:It's the chemicals!? Bollox to that!</title>
	<author>QuoteMstr</author>
	<datestamp>1258296360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I usually try to be thoughtful in my posts, but after the above, all I can muster is:</p><p>What the fuck is wrong with you?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I usually try to be thoughtful in my posts , but after the above , all I can muster is : What the fuck is wrong with you ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I usually try to be thoughtful in my posts, but after the above, all I can muster is:What the fuck is wrong with you?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105178</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30107274</id>
	<title>Phytoestrogens in diet more likely culprit</title>
	<author>Reziac</author>
	<datestamp>1258313700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Try looking at their diets first. Phytoestrogen content in flaxseed meal and soy products are much more likely to blame.</p><p><a href="http://www.soyonlineservice.co.nz/04malehealth.htm" title="soyonlineservice.co.nz">http://www.soyonlineservice.co.nz/04malehealth.htm</a> [soyonlineservice.co.nz]</p><p>Flaxseed meal has THREE TIMES as much phytoestrogen as soy, and is MUCH more biologically available (being far more digestible than soy).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Try looking at their diets first .
Phytoestrogen content in flaxseed meal and soy products are much more likely to blame.http : //www.soyonlineservice.co.nz/04malehealth.htm [ soyonlineservice.co.nz ] Flaxseed meal has THREE TIMES as much phytoestrogen as soy , and is MUCH more biologically available ( being far more digestible than soy ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Try looking at their diets first.
Phytoestrogen content in flaxseed meal and soy products are much more likely to blame.http://www.soyonlineservice.co.nz/04malehealth.htm [soyonlineservice.co.nz]Flaxseed meal has THREE TIMES as much phytoestrogen as soy, and is MUCH more biologically available (being far more digestible than soy).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105654</id>
	<title>Re:Good news for feminism</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258299180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I should imagine most of the feminist community ain't too happy about this; the news reporting is chock-full of gender essentialism.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I should imagine most of the feminist community ai n't too happy about this ; the news reporting is chock-full of gender essentialism .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I should imagine most of the feminist community ain't too happy about this; the news reporting is chock-full of gender essentialism.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105214</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105914</id>
	<title>Re:It's the chemicals!? Bollox to that!</title>
	<author>Jedi Alec</author>
	<datestamp>1258303680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Yeah it has nothing to do with forcing boys to engage in more timid play, impressing upon them that when they grow older they'll be expected to do their share of the child rearing, presenting them with effeminate roll models, balking at allowing them to take risks or play "politically incorrect" games, keeping them away from violence and agression more than any previous generation, or putting them in female clothing for a giggle. Nothing to do with that at all. It's the chemicals!</i></p><p>I love how you manage to throw all that in a big pot and present it as a big stew, instead of separate items one might have different opinions on...not allowing an 8 year old boy to play GTA IV isn't quite the same as preparing him for having to cook his own food and washing his own clothes some day.</p><p>Or does the idea of changing a diaper insult your manhood somehow?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah it has nothing to do with forcing boys to engage in more timid play , impressing upon them that when they grow older they 'll be expected to do their share of the child rearing , presenting them with effeminate roll models , balking at allowing them to take risks or play " politically incorrect " games , keeping them away from violence and agression more than any previous generation , or putting them in female clothing for a giggle .
Nothing to do with that at all .
It 's the chemicals ! I love how you manage to throw all that in a big pot and present it as a big stew , instead of separate items one might have different opinions on...not allowing an 8 year old boy to play GTA IV is n't quite the same as preparing him for having to cook his own food and washing his own clothes some day.Or does the idea of changing a diaper insult your manhood somehow ?
; - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah it has nothing to do with forcing boys to engage in more timid play, impressing upon them that when they grow older they'll be expected to do their share of the child rearing, presenting them with effeminate roll models, balking at allowing them to take risks or play "politically incorrect" games, keeping them away from violence and agression more than any previous generation, or putting them in female clothing for a giggle.
Nothing to do with that at all.
It's the chemicals!I love how you manage to throw all that in a big pot and present it as a big stew, instead of separate items one might have different opinions on...not allowing an 8 year old boy to play GTA IV isn't quite the same as preparing him for having to cook his own food and washing his own clothes some day.Or does the idea of changing a diaper insult your manhood somehow?
;-)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105178</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30108052</id>
	<title>Re:It's the chemicals!? Bollox to that!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258317840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Be hero and join the military where I can shoot people?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... Maybe something involving beating up and or shooting badguys.</p></div><p>Yeah, because fighting for your people and your principles is a bad thing.  Defending the things, ideas, and people you love... that really fucking sucks.  Nobody should do it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Be hero and join the military where I can shoot people ?
... Maybe something involving beating up and or shooting badguys.Yeah , because fighting for your people and your principles is a bad thing .
Defending the things , ideas , and people you love... that really fucking sucks .
Nobody should do it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Be hero and join the military where I can shoot people?
... Maybe something involving beating up and or shooting badguys.Yeah, because fighting for your people and your principles is a bad thing.
Defending the things, ideas, and people you love... that really fucking sucks.
Nobody should do it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105344</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30118790</id>
	<title>Re:It's the chemicals!? Bollox to that!</title>
	<author>hitnrunrambler</author>
	<datestamp>1258399980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Yeah it has nothing to do with forcing boys to engage in more timid play, impressing upon them that when they grow older they'll be expected to do their share of the child rearing, presenting them with effeminate roll models, balking at allowing them to take risks or play "politically incorrect" games, keeping them away from violence and agression more than any previous generation, or putting them in female clothing for a giggle. Nothing to do with that at all. It's the chemicals!</p><p>GIMME A BREAK.</p></div><p>Dunno....  I didn't have permission for any of the "boy stuff" I did as a kid. We were forced to engage in more timid play (while supervised... and seriously who's supervised these days??). Risks and political incorrectness were punishable offenses. I snuck my violent and aggressive entertainment.</p><p>Those are all pretty traditional parental focal points, and it's just as traditional to break past those boundaries. I'd say it's a fair to ask "Is the perennial campaign toward emasculation is more effective in the modern developed world? Is there an external reason? Is that reason social or chemical?"</p><p>This reply is based on the possibility that you may be seriously willing to consider the question. If you're merely another ignorant with a prepackaged ideology, or if you have unresolved identity issues from the time you spent in girl clothes.... then feel free to ignore this.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah it has nothing to do with forcing boys to engage in more timid play , impressing upon them that when they grow older they 'll be expected to do their share of the child rearing , presenting them with effeminate roll models , balking at allowing them to take risks or play " politically incorrect " games , keeping them away from violence and agression more than any previous generation , or putting them in female clothing for a giggle .
Nothing to do with that at all .
It 's the chemicals ! GIM ME A BREAK.Dunno.... I did n't have permission for any of the " boy stuff " I did as a kid .
We were forced to engage in more timid play ( while supervised... and seriously who 's supervised these days ? ? ) .
Risks and political incorrectness were punishable offenses .
I snuck my violent and aggressive entertainment.Those are all pretty traditional parental focal points , and it 's just as traditional to break past those boundaries .
I 'd say it 's a fair to ask " Is the perennial campaign toward emasculation is more effective in the modern developed world ?
Is there an external reason ?
Is that reason social or chemical ?
" This reply is based on the possibility that you may be seriously willing to consider the question .
If you 're merely another ignorant with a prepackaged ideology , or if you have unresolved identity issues from the time you spent in girl clothes.... then feel free to ignore this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah it has nothing to do with forcing boys to engage in more timid play, impressing upon them that when they grow older they'll be expected to do their share of the child rearing, presenting them with effeminate roll models, balking at allowing them to take risks or play "politically incorrect" games, keeping them away from violence and agression more than any previous generation, or putting them in female clothing for a giggle.
Nothing to do with that at all.
It's the chemicals!GIMME A BREAK.Dunno....  I didn't have permission for any of the "boy stuff" I did as a kid.
We were forced to engage in more timid play (while supervised... and seriously who's supervised these days??).
Risks and political incorrectness were punishable offenses.
I snuck my violent and aggressive entertainment.Those are all pretty traditional parental focal points, and it's just as traditional to break past those boundaries.
I'd say it's a fair to ask "Is the perennial campaign toward emasculation is more effective in the modern developed world?
Is there an external reason?
Is that reason social or chemical?
"This reply is based on the possibility that you may be seriously willing to consider the question.
If you're merely another ignorant with a prepackaged ideology, or if you have unresolved identity issues from the time you spent in girl clothes.... then feel free to ignore this.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105178</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30109258</id>
	<title>Re:Is it such a bad thing?</title>
	<author>4D6963</author>
	<datestamp>1258282380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No, you're just subject to whatever's the opposite of misogyny. Have no fear, it's just a consequence of the overly successful second wave feminism, and it's still politically correct to treat men like they're submen (or subwomen if that makes more sense).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No , you 're just subject to whatever 's the opposite of misogyny .
Have no fear , it 's just a consequence of the overly successful second wave feminism , and it 's still politically correct to treat men like they 're submen ( or subwomen if that makes more sense ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, you're just subject to whatever's the opposite of misogyny.
Have no fear, it's just a consequence of the overly successful second wave feminism, and it's still politically correct to treat men like they're submen (or subwomen if that makes more sense).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105366</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_14_2023219_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105696
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30123108
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_14_2023219_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105210
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105790
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_14_2023219_70</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105510
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30106118
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_14_2023219_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105298
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105804
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_14_2023219_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105178
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105344
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30106478
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_14_2023219_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105178
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105222
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105568
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30108234
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_14_2023219_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105178
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105344
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30106742
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_14_2023219_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105178
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105344
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30109402
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_14_2023219_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105178
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30106076
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_14_2023219_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105178
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105344
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30106468
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_14_2023219_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105510
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30108252
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30113638
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_14_2023219_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105796
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30108028
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_14_2023219_89</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105178
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105236
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30106262
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_14_2023219_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105796
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30108810
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_14_2023219_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105178
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105332
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105592
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_14_2023219_79</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105298
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105706
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_14_2023219_82</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105188
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30106818
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_14_2023219_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30107008
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30111754
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_14_2023219_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105178
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30107582
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30109110
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_14_2023219_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105224
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30120344
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_14_2023219_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105210
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105540
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_14_2023219_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105178
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105344
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105934
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_14_2023219_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105366
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30109258
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_14_2023219_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105178
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105344
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105702
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30107434
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_14_2023219_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105366
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30107362
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_14_2023219_87</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105178
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105222
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105524
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_14_2023219_78</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105178
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105344
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105702
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30110586
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_14_2023219_81</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105178
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105344
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105702
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30106352
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_14_2023219_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105210
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105378
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_14_2023219_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105210
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105350
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105638
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_14_2023219_77</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105366
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105508
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_14_2023219_68</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105210
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30112948
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_14_2023219_80</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105696
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30106312
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_14_2023219_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105178
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30106606
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_14_2023219_71</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105178
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105222
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30109926
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_14_2023219_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105446
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30106052
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_14_2023219_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105178
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105344
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30109384
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_14_2023219_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105274
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30106598
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_14_2023219_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105210
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105882
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_14_2023219_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105510
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30106880
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_14_2023219_69</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105796
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30106314
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_14_2023219_72</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105510
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30108252
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30116890
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_14_2023219_74</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105214
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105654
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_14_2023219_76</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105274
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30120668
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_14_2023219_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105178
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105344
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30108998
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_14_2023219_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105178
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105344
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30108052
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_14_2023219_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105446
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30108310
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_14_2023219_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105366
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105828
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_14_2023219_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105446
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30110264
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_14_2023219_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105696
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30106510
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_14_2023219_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105178
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105332
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30112028
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_14_2023219_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105178
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105222
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105402
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_14_2023219_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105366
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105672
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_14_2023219_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105366
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105650
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_14_2023219_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105178
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105222
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105568
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30112312
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_14_2023219_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105210
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105226
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_14_2023219_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105510
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30113942
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_14_2023219_85</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105510
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30106146
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_14_2023219_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105510
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30106186
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_14_2023219_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105210
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105246
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_14_2023219_84</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105298
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30106106
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_14_2023219_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105292
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30113446
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_14_2023219_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105298
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105420
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_14_2023219_86</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105178
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105924
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_14_2023219_88</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105178
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105914
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_14_2023219_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105274
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30109614
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_14_2023219_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105274
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30106162
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_14_2023219_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105298
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105438
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_14_2023219_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105796
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30107734
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_14_2023219_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105178
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30111506
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_14_2023219_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105214
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105426
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_14_2023219_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105696
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30110492
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_14_2023219_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105178
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30118790
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_14_2023219_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105178
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105344
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105702
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30107748
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_14_2023219_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105510
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30107708
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_14_2023219_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105210
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105956
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_14_2023219_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105210
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30106006
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_14_2023219_83</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105178
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30106366
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_14_2023219_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105178
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105344
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105952
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30118838
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_14_2023219_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105366
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30106324
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_14_2023219_73</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105366
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30110124
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_14_2023219_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105274
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30113076
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_14_2023219_75</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105178
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105644
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_14_2023219_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105510
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30106308
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_14_2023219_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105796
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30107102
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_14_2023219_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105298
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105528
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_14_2023219_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105696
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30106590
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_14_2023219_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105178
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30107582
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30109148
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_14_2023219_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105274
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30106070
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_14_2023219_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105366
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105566
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_14_2023219.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105796
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30107734
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30106314
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30108810
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30108028
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30107102
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_14_2023219.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105298
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105528
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105420
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105438
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105706
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30106106
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105804
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_14_2023219.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105446
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30106052
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30108310
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30110264
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_14_2023219.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105374
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_14_2023219.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30106450
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_14_2023219.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105274
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30106162
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30113076
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30106598
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30120668
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30109614
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30106070
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_14_2023219.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105366
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30106324
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105672
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105650
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105508
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30109258
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105566
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30110124
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30107362
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105828
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_14_2023219.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30108698
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_14_2023219.27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30108460
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_14_2023219.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105558
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_14_2023219.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105310
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_14_2023219.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105188
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30106818
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_14_2023219.25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105148
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_14_2023219.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105440
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_14_2023219.28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105462
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_14_2023219.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105224
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30120344
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_14_2023219.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30106512
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_14_2023219.26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105214
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105654
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105426
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_14_2023219.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105292
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30113446
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_14_2023219.30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105178
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105914
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30106606
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30106366
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105236
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30106262
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30106076
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105644
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30111506
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105924
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105332
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105592
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30112028
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30118790
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30107582
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30109148
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30109110
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105344
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105952
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30118838
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30108052
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105934
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30108998
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105702
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30107434
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30107748
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30110586
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30106352
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30106478
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30106468
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30106742
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30109402
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30109384
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105222
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105524
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30109926
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105402
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105568
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30108234
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30112312
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_14_2023219.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30107812
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_14_2023219.29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105510
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30106146
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30107708
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30106186
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30106118
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30108252
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30116890
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30113638
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30106308
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30106880
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30113942
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_14_2023219.31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30106524
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_14_2023219.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30107008
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30111754
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_14_2023219.23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30113714
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_14_2023219.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30107040
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_14_2023219.24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105192
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_14_2023219.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105680
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_14_2023219.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105696
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30123108
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30106312
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30110492
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30106510
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30106590
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_14_2023219.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105210
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105956
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105350
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105638
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30112948
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30106006
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105882
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105540
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105378
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105790
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105246
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105226
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_14_2023219.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30105746
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_14_2023219.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_14_2023219.30107174
</commentlist>
</conversation>
