Later Childbirth And Male Homosexuality

From Sophia,

this study indicates male children of women who used extra progesterone are significantly higher to be homo or bi-sexual.

Uh oh. Chalk another one up in the “God of Biomechanics will not be denied” column.

Does progesterone influence baby’s later sexuality?

A new study addresses whether supplementing progesterone during pregnancy, a common practice to prevent miscarriage, could influence a baby’s sexual orientation in later life.

Dr. June Reinisch, director emerita of the Kinsey Institute in the U.S., led the study. She found that bisexuality is quite common among men and women whose mothers received additional doses of the sex hormone progesterone while pregnant.

As discussed in the journal Archives of Sexual Behavior, researchers tracked the sexual development of 34 Danes whose mothers were treated with the hormone to prevent miscarriage.

According to the investigators, progesterone appears to be an underappreciated factor influencing the normal development of variations in human sexuality and psychosexuality.


The 34 participants in the study were drawn from the Copenhagen Perinatal Cohort, which comprises information collected from virtually all children born between 1959 and 1961 at the university hospital in Copenhagen, Denmark.

The 17 men and 17 women were selected because their mothers exclusively received the progesterone lutocyclin to prevent a miscarriage.

These men and women were compared with a carefully selected control group who were not exposed prenatally to lutocyclin or any other hormone medication, but who otherwise matched the study participants based on 14 relevant physical, medical, and socioeconomic factors.

The participants were all in their mid-20s when asked about their sexual orientation, self-identification, attraction to each sex, and sexual history using questionnaires and a structured interview with a psychologist.

It was found that men and women whose mothers were treated with progesterone were significantly less likely to describe themselves as heterosexual. One in every five (20.6 percent) of the progesterone- exposed participants labeled themselves as other than heterosexual.

Compared to the untreated group, the chances were greater that by their mid-20s they had already engaged in some form of same-sex sexual behavior (in up to 24.2 percent of cases), and that they were attracted to the same (29.4 percent) or to both sexes (17.6 percent). Both exposed males and females also had higher scores related to attraction to men.

Granted, this is a small sample size, but its findings are so scandalous as to demand further investigation, because what this portends for modren society is NOT OK. Problematic, even.

Miscarriages are more common as a woman ages, and the miscarriage rate rapidly increases after her mid-30s.

The study of more than 600,000 women in Denmark who had a pregnancy between 1978 and 1992 shows a steady age-related rise in rates of miscarriage — from 9% among women in their early to mid-20s to a whopping 75% among women age 45 and older.

Progesterone supplementation is given to older pregnant women to prevent miscarriage.

Progesterone supplementation is associated with an increase in the possibility of delivering a baby with a sexual identity crisis.

Modren society is oriented around female independence from the natural consequences of female reproduction. More precisely, it is oriented around avoiding early pregnancy, accumulating pointless credentials, riding the cock carousel, and settling down much later in life with a beta male to pop out 1.2 autistic homosexual babies.

American women (stay away from me) are marrying later and having children later in life. And there is no end in sight to this trend, barring an environmental cataclysm. A cleansing fire, if you will.

Our women are





and hormonally-invaded vessels giving birth to a generation of Darwinian dead ends.

We are becoming the race extinction we virtue signal.

We should have hewn to Truth & Beauty, and we could have avoided the unfolding catastrophe.

Truth: Younger women have healthier wombs.

Beauty: Younger women are hotter and birth sturdier babies.

Related: Progesterone treatment in mice affects the testosterone level and sexual behavior of male offspring.


  1. many women really believe that anyone can have perfectly healthy babies after 35. i’m being generous with the age.

    ps: there’s also autism too

    Liked by 3 people

    • on December 17, 2018 at 12:23 pm John Joel Glanton

      That seems true enough. It would depends on the woman’s health and biological age, I would say.


      • on December 17, 2018 at 1:50 pm Captain Obvious

        Thanks so much to everyone who has contributed to the greater Progesterone knowledgebase au Chateau for the last couple of weeks.

        Personally, it hits home like a dagger through the heart, because we’ve got a kid in our extended family whose mother took the Progesterone shots during pr3gnancy – and her OB/GYN was even “pro-l!fe” – who can you trust anymoar?

        But please keep the knowledge flowing.

        And thanks again.

        Liked by 1 person

      • the thing is, is that if they planned their first baby at 35… it’ll be much latter, if they gave birth at all


      • @CO there is a huge contingent of married trad Catholics, largely young (and whom actively seek out ‘pro-life’ OB/GYNs who subscribe to a very scientific method of natural family planning which aggressively promotes this kind of progesterone supplementation for any female issues (including most that a young woman would be prescribed birth control pills for.)
        It’s weird because they’re virulently opposed to hormonal birth control methods, and rightly so (even the non-Catholics.) But I’d venture to guess more than half are supplementing progesterone.
        Granted, this might be due to the contingent of women opposed to hbc seeking this method out as the only ‘moral’ or even Chuch-approved alternative, but the hormones being massively force-fed to the young fertile women in this country – not to mention ending up in the water supply – can not be dismissed as anything but overtly intentional.

        Liked by 1 person

    • nobody is telling them they cannot.

      nobody is stepping up and saying look bitch your biology, nature, doesn’t give a shit about your career anymore than any man does. You reach sexual maturity at puberty then you have like 15 years of peak fertility then it hits a wall and goes down fast.

      women aren’t even THINKING of having kids until after they’re 27…ffs they haven’t barely even gotten their vaunted “masters degree” until around then.

      they think reality doesn’t exist bc white men did a damn good job of nearly abolishing it.

      Liked by 1 person

  2. And let’s not even get started on autism, etc. It’s a small sample, but I know three women who gave birth over 40. One had a boy who is smart and athletic but prone to autistic meltdowns. One had a daughter who is learning-disabled. One used a younger woman’s egg, and the boy was OK, but childbirth nearly killed the mother.

    Liked by 1 person

    • on December 17, 2018 at 12:24 pm John Joel Glanton

      I would think 35-40 is even pushing it. Over 40 I would not try.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Couple that with the fact being overweight also increases the chances of having an autist baby and you’ll have a mostly autistic population in no time in the west.


      • I have to say that none of these women was overweight. The autistic kid’s mom was an endurance athlete (distance runner). Didn’t help.


    • I can not remember where I read it. I will try to find the study. But it said first baby at late maternal age is more high risk than if the woman has been concieving since she was in her 20s and was haveing her last baby at late maternal age. It is also not very likely a woman can conceive naturaly after age about 35,, if she never had children before. It was some thing about pregnancy and child birth “re setting” a womans fertility so that it makes her more fertile for more long. Eg. Woman has babys through her 20s and early 30s, can conceive late,, woman trying for first baby age 40 is very low chance with no medical intervention.

      And child birth and nurseing is dificult on the body any age,, I can not imagine doing it first time age 40. I feel like it would age me 20 years.


  3. on December 17, 2018 at 12:22 pm John Joel Glanton

    This makes sense. My parents were in 30s and I have incel jaw. Though I have never been a homo.


  4. I am unable to naturally produce a child because my body doesn’t produce enough progesterone, I knew this when I was 20 years old. I take Progestomend (supplements) during day 15-27 of my cycle just to control my mood. Low progesterone in a woman causes SEVERE mood swings among a list of other negative things. Not fun. My friend is 27 and had a miscarriage. Second time around doctors amped up her progestrone. She gave birth to a cute baby girl. I guess she’s lucky she didn’t birth a boy.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Have you tried eating lots of fatty fish, and concurrently decreasing omega-6 consumption like canola, and pretty much all vegetable oils?

      Liked by 1 person

    • You should switch over to a meat based, high fatty diet and see how it works out. Cut out the processed grains (carbs) and vegetables as much as possible. Replace with proteins, foods rich in fats (coconut oil, grass-fed butter, MCT oil, again meat rich in fats, etc)

      Liked by 3 people

      • Thats terrible advice. If anyone wants to be healthy and conceive, gestate, or raise a healthy child they should completely cut out all meat and oil and processed foods and focus on eating grains, beans, legumes, and other starchy foods as well as fresh fruits and vegetables.

        However if you read the comment closely you’ll notice the individual gives no indication that she actually wants a child.


      • (((bigjohn33))) promotes the food the (((food pyramid))) to the goy women

        Liked by 1 person

    • women got severe mood swing no matter what hormone levels you got


  5. I’m very dubious that bi-sexuality is actually a “real” thing. There is no way, in my humble opinion, someone can get EQUALLY turned on by both sexes.

    Liked by 2 people

  6. on December 17, 2018 at 1:05 pm James A Pyrich



  7. Old fathers have a much higher chance of having girls.


  8. A cleansing fire, or a long freeze. I’m really looking forward to the Solar Minima.


  9. The Fraternal Birth Order hypothesis overlaps with this a bit. In short, the more older brothers someone has, the more likely they are to be gay. Working theory is carrying a male offspring triggers some mothers to produce certain antibodies, ostensibly to prevent her from masculinizing and/or miscarrying, which makes some biological sense. (Age of mother was controlled for and had no effect).

    Blanchard is the gold standard for birth order hypothesis. I do wonder if he controlled for things like this or if he could do a retroactive metanalysis of his previous work if the progesterone theory has merit.

    Also I appreciate Cochran’s shoot from the hip theorizing, but his gay germ theory is retarded.


  10. I’m an older fellow of some indeterminate age. Have discussed older mothers with my own mother and with a couple of friends born to older mothers long ago. Have observed the changes in our culture since the beginnings of birth control. A few observations follow:

    Once upon a time before birth control, it was not uncommon to have mothers giving birth in their 40’s and their kids were healthier than today. Look a little bit closer and one sees the crucial differences between the 40+ year old mothers pre-1960 and today.

    First, chances were excellent the pre-1960’s mother never spent time on the cock carousel. Many more of them were virgins or maybe had only one partner before they married than now. Today? Don’t get us started on that one …

    Second, chances were excellent the pre-1960’s mother never had an abortion. This is crucial as it is turning out that getting an abortion before her first child carried to term may predispose the mother toward breast or ovarian cancer. Lot of science going on there, but it comes down to seeing nature’s great miracle cruelly cut out and the negative effect that action has on her body. By the way, you will not easily find this one, that’s courtesy of the globo homo folks who consider Margaret Sanger one of the great heroes of our age.

    Third, obesity. A lot less of it back then. ‘Nuff said. Related, physical conditioning: gonna bet mothers of all ages were in better shape then than now.

    Fourth, pre-1960’s women who had babies in their 40’s typically already had at least two or more previous children dating back to their 20’s or even their teens. So their bodies were already used to pregnancy. In other words, they were already good baby makers before they had that last child.

    Fifth, turns out that the pill itself is rather problematic in terms of its long term effects on women and their babies. There is a lot we still don’t understand what goes on in a woman’s body when it changes from pre-conception through pregnancy to birth. Another bit of research that isn’t that easy to find.

    Now the foregoing isn’t to say there were no complications back in the day, it’s just that they were nowhere near what they are now. The lesson being, buns into ovens sooner than later and don’t pull those buns early. Plus stay the fuck away from the pill. OTOH, I recognize that today’s childbirth age women aren’t great bargains anymore, not even close. But the future belongs to those who show up. Just have to see if anybody does that with our women.

    Liked by 2 people

    • on December 17, 2018 at 1:56 pm Captain Obvious

      >>>>> “But the future belongs to those who show up.”


      Liked by 1 person

    • Hope I’m not grossing anyone out but also consider – those women were not menstuating every month the way women are now. First menses is arriving earlier (also difficult to verify but true – hormones in milk? water supply? obesity? One could pontificate endlessly.)
      But more importantly, physiologically speaking, my grandmothers for example – they had very, VERY few periods throughout the course of their lives because from an early age they were either pregnant or breastfeeding MOST of the time! (I breastfed my babies for almost 3 years each – who is doing that these days?? But that was the norm before modernity and don’t get me started on SOY-based baby formula!!)


    • I think you are onto something here. At my first job (approx. 1966-67)for a family owned biz, the owner’s wife had her last child at 50. The female child was then 17, healthy, feminine and popular.


  11. It might be true but it is only a correlation on a very small sample and I am not sure how they controlled for many other factors which could influence it. So while intuitively it makes sense I can’t trust such a shitty research


    • on December 17, 2018 at 2:03 pm Captain Obvious

      Yes, it is a small sample, but they got hom0sexual/b!sexual responses in the 20% to 25% range, from people born circa 1959 to 1961, which has got to be about five to twenty-five times what you would expect.

      On the other hand, if there is any truth to the numbers, then the good news is that the kids have about a 75% to 80% chance of not being phucked up.


  12. Our women are



    Overly consumptive

    Overly talkative


  13. could be true, but that’s a minuscule sample size. the genetic cluster discussed by JF shows a lot more promise.


  14. Up until the end of last year this was something that I’ve always suspected but never had any scientific proof to back it up. Until I stumbled on a youtoob vid end of last year (and of course I cant find it again) It was an interview with a genetist stating flat out and matter of factly that homo sexuality is genetic and that for some the gene is turned on inutero and for others it is activated later in life. Which married up with the people I’ve met in life through work et cerera. In particular one woman who was about 5’10 or 11 with broad shoulders. She was the youngest of 5 The other children were men all over 6ft. These guys were hyper masculine As teenagers there would be fist fights in the house one occasion one of the weaker brothers was thrown through a window. During a fight. She became a mechanic and worked in masculine workplaces. Like open cut mines Needles to say that she preferred girls and from what I could see really feminine ones at that. Nature v nurture is a moot point, it’s almost entirely nature.


  15. When we had our first child, my wife was 23. 41 when we had our fifth. From what I’ve seen and observed women who have children in their 20’s, and more in their 30’s, don’t have any real problem getting pregnant in their 40’s. If a woman hasn’t had a child by 30, pregnancy chances go way down. Must be evolution’s way of saying “Gee, no kids yet? She must have undesirable traits! Shut down, shut down!”


    • There is a hypothesis that women, even if they have had children, when nearing menopause, go into a – sometimes subconscious – panic mode.
      Even if they are consciously using birth control. Now, the hindbrain might not be able to communicate this very well, and might not be aware of birth control. BUT, a problem is identified and a plausible – but usually false – theory is invoked: It is the man’s fault. So she rushes off into affair(s), and/or divorce etc.

      Liked by 1 person

  16. Our women are not merely liberated. They’re über-liberated. That’s even worse.


  17. “A new study addresses whether supplementing progesterone during pregnancy, a common practice to prevent miscarriage, could influence a baby’s sexual orientation in later life.”

    Nature is trying to abort the undesirables, yet Globohomo frustrates the goal.
    Result? More Soyboys than you can shake a stick at.


  18. On the plus side we are experiencing sex based selection against becoming or marrying career women.