Soy DOES NOT feminize you (if consumed in the right amounts)

Soy is a phytoestrogen, but in many circumstances, it actually reduces estrogenic effects. Although it is an estrogen, it's potency is far less than that of mammalian estrogen, and has little estrogenic activity in cells.

Soy acts as an antagonist to natural estrogen, reducing it's effects. Since it is far weaker than mammalian estrogen, it has defeminizing effects on bodies with somewhat high estrogen. Sure, if your hormone levels are already very low, soy can have feminizing effects due to scarcity of hormones. But if your testosterone levels are really high, then it prevents the aromatized estrogen from acting, instead replacing it with something far weaker.

Here are some studies that back this up:
sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/01/060115154340.htm
pcrm.org/health/cancer-resources/ask/ask-the-expert-soy

Sup vegancuck, I haven't seen you post in a long while.

Very interesting. I consume so much milk and beef so no wonder I have man tits despite being relatively in shape.

u r a fag

Yeah, they usually harvest meat from nursing meat, which is why the estrogen content is so high. If you want to get quality meat nowdays, it's best to raise your own cattle or buy from a farmer's market.

**nursing cattle
Just fuck my shit up.

Vegan thread (I'm vegan).

...

I love these images, they're so stupid and demonstrate profoundly how completely insecure you are in your lifestyle choice. Do you see Jews and Muslims spamming every board about the evils of pork you fuckwit?

First off, I've seen maybe four of these "list of anti-vegan arguments" memes, all poorly drawn and halfassed. You list off strawman versions of arguments against veganism, and pretend just acknowledging they exist is refuting them. Protip: IT'S NOT YOU SOY-ADDLED STUPID FUCK, HAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

Second, strongest man in Germany? He's not German, and the title is worthless since the title holder for world's strongest man is from another country. What a worthless metric.

This reminds me of that video of vegan gains squealing in his high-pitched feminine voice and jiggling his mantitties while exclaiming soy does not feminize. Fuck off, dweeb.

American soy is different from Asian soy, the former of which is unfermented and contains many of the plant defenses and does not have the bacteria that fermented soy has. Asians have been eating lots of soy for centuries, so would it be safe to call pic related a soy boy? There are different kinds of soy, and the ones used in American food are used as an additive, not because of its health properties.

Alcohol lowers a man's testosterone, so it makes sense that fermented soy wreaks havoc on it. Yet, a ton of men today guzzle down alcohol like it's going out of style.

It was never claimed that Patrik Baboumian was German, just that he was the strongest man in Germany. Regardless of whether or not he is the strongest man in the world, his accomplishments demonstrate the possibilities of having a vegan diet, and not that veganism necessitates being weak and unhealthy.

And still, despite all that you said, you have not provided any arguments against veganism. Muslims do try to convert other people to their religion, while Jews aren't really keen on other people intruding on their secret club. Me demonstrating points for veganism is not indicative of any sort of "insecurity" or whatnot.

Number 1: The fact that it's possible doesn't make it desirable, nor does it prove anything about health.

Number 2: straw men. An army of them.

Number 3: Cherry picking.

Number 4: Animals are the only way to turn marginal grazing land into food. At best your argument is useful for arguing against feeding grain to food animals. But that's not done to make them fatter it's done because it's cheaper, and it's only cheaper because of grain subsidies. So yeah, I'm with you: Let's seriously cut back grain subsidies.

Number 5: Your weird shit is way weirder than mine. Not that I've ever seen someone use that argument. And if I used it it would be more about the nutrition, taste, and texture of vegan foods.

There's nothing wrong with eating meat tbh, it's just that a lot of meat has been ruined and tainted with estrogenic steroids. The hype of soy causing effeminate behavior is also nothing but pure sensationalism. The cause of declining virility isn't soy, but increasing estrogen in meat and increased alcohol consumption, along with fatting foods.

NEAT
Fuck meatcucks

Stop using soy to make argument against veganism/carnivorism.
Soy products come straight from (((Rockefeller))) biotech trashcan.
I wonder who's behind this post?, gee.

Fool, who you foolin'? It acts as agonist, triggers not blocks receptors.
Enjoy your Soros AIDS.

this

MEATCUCK MEATCUCK WHERE'S YOUR BUCK
DON'T YOU HAVE SOME DICKS TO SUCK

...

True, but it prevents estrogen that is a magnitude stronger than it from acting on it.
Breast cancer is fueled by estrogen, and the action of it prevents it from happening by reducing the effects of estrogen a LOT. An analogy to this is androstenediol or dhea binding to androgen receptsors instead of testosterone or dht, reducing masculine effects on tissue due to them blocking stronger androgens.

Link me to a source that proves it wrong, and I'll believe you.

...

The entire vegan philosophy hinges on two major principles; a certain approach to morality and health. In order to have a conversation about the implications of any given specific diet, one must be educated in understanding what different foods do to the body. The point is that this conversation is difficult to have when the uneducated are involved, so it's best to avoid that conversation entirely. You'll get retards on both sides saying all kinds of bullshit that has been fed to them by dubious or biased sources, so it'll inevitably turn into a shitshow, with people going, "MEAT IS BAD FOR YOU and SOY WILL TURN YOU INTO A WOMAN" so just knock that shit off tbh.

If you remove the conversation about health, what is left is a conversation about ethics and morality. Is it moral to consume the flesh of animals? Vegans tend to anthropomorphize their pets and, by extension, other animals in the world. This attribution of human qualities to animals is what aids them in drawing their morality. Vegans believe in moral consistency, and yet they hilariously believe that they can choose which moral principles can be considered objective or subjective. The problem with that line of thinking is that the act of drawing distinctions between "objective and subjective morality" is in itself a process built upon subjective interpretations of these distinctions. Why is it universally "wrong" to rape and torture and kill? The wrong conclusion is, "because these are objective moral truths" and it would be more beneficial to conclude that these truths are derived from a subjective consensus. The absolute majority of human beings would not like to be tortured or raped or killed, so human societies stand by these tenets as a testament to acting with mutual empathy for one another. Furthermore, it could be argued in some context that these actions could be considered "acceptable" in specific scenarios, but the acceptability of said actions would be subject to the circumstances in which they would be deemed appropriate.

Why is it that human beings almost universally say that "killing is wrong" and yet throw this principle out the window the moment that an international conflict escalates beyond clear cut and diplomatic terms? Do the members of ISIS not deserve your empathy, fellow human? If they have done something to relinquish their rights as humans, then this merely goes to show that there are limits to your morality, and that morality is itself a body of thought that must be modified along with the circumstances in which the questionable actions take place.

The next question then becomes, "Why should animals be exempt from rights that are reserved for human kind?" The answer, as far as I can tell, is that most animals that are bred for their flesh have no ability to perceive themselves in any conscious capacity that extends beyond their basic and instinctual needs. It is erroneous to conclude that a chicken is sentient enough to be aware of itself, and it is certainly absurd to conclude that a chicken can have any manner of thought rolling around inside its tiny skull. Yes, chickens can likely feel pain, and that is why it could be considered "inhumane" to torture a chicken, but that does not imply that we as humans cannot find a way to reduce the chicken's suffering at its time of slaughter so as to ensure the most "empathetic" method of killing. Furthermore, this does not imply that we cannot furnish a lifestyle for the chicken that is both pleasurable and accommodating, which could then reduce its suffering and ultimately diminish any of those "nasty bad feelings" that are involved in the systematic slaughter of animals for their flesh. In other words, you may have a point in arguing that factory farming is a crass and questionable human practice, but that does not have to extend to every potential animal-human relationship.

In response, vegans would argue that all animal life is sacred and deserves to be preserved, yet they cannot provide any reasoning beyond their own emotional sentiment to support this claim. Your bond with an animal is not a compelling argument.

Technically, there is no such thing as a "plant estrogen" because that's not how plants work.
Phytoestrogens are literally chemicals that MIMIC estrogen in the human body.

Holla Forumsullshit

Eat the forbidden fruit

thats gay enough

So it makes men feminine, but makes women masculine. No wonder Asians have such small titties.

We got fucking neo in the matrix over here

The point is that arguments like "plant estrogens don't affect the human body like human estrogen does" are retarded. phytoestrogens affect the human body like estrogen does BY DEFINITION.

Except less…
You know the litteraly point of why it's less feminizing than milk

samefag

Except not
Lol, even if then you're deflecting.
I'm not even vegan but I like tempeh and know the truth about soy. Unlike you brainwashed faggots.

Got milk goy?

Are you implying that pic related is representative of asians in general? Are you implying that every asian in history has had the same diet? Is an asian nobleman not allowed to eat meat like a regular nobleman? Is it because he is asian and not white? Are you a racist?

Deflecting again fag

Fuck off, racist.

Fuck off, nigger.

...

Chink nigger.