Gender-Bender Chemicals are Turning Boys Into Girls

unityemissions and antonia...

...I think if you both step back and recognize that some phrasing is off-putting to some people - you might realize that you have a lot in common and could work together.

unityemissions - you made a number of strong statements based on cultural dogma - and I rose to the bait too. For which I apologize. But like you, I don't have time to focus on a non-issue.


jjjtir - the study looked to describe a matrix of "fitness-related traits," specifically, whether or not intelligence can be considered fitness-related.

FYI - Virtually all the negative impacts described can be explained as symptoms of sub-clinical chronic pandemic vascular disease, likely attributable to one or more latent viral infections, probably disseminated via vaccines, consumer products, food, water and etc - and chronically reactivated by environmental triggers like estrogen-mimicers.

As a side note: Intelligence measures tend simply to entrench and glorify ruling class priorities, and create barriers against crass interlopers.

Human cognitive abilities inter-correlate to form a positive matrix, from which a large first factor, called ‘Spearman's g’ or general intelligence, can be extracted. General intelligence itself is correlated with many important health outcomes including cardio-vascular function and longevity. However, the important evolutionary question of whether intelligence is a fitness-related trait has not been tested directly, let alone answered. If the correlations among cognitive abilities are part of a larger matrix of positive associations among fitness-related traits, then intelligence ought to correlate with seemingly unrelated traits that affect fitness—such as semen quality. ......results suggest that a phenotype-wide fitness factor may contribute to the association between intelligence and health. Clarifying whether a fitness factor exists is important theoretically for understanding the genomic architecture of fitness-related traits, and practically for understanding patterns of human physical and psychological health.

Originally posted by antonia
This proves the original premise of the OP to be false. This was my intent from the beginning. It also proves your premise false.

What premise?

I don't think anyone is arguing that guys are growing vags because of chemicals. The title states that chemicals are turning boys into girls. Are you taking this literally? That's the common sense thing I was talking about...

Originally posted by unityemissions


What premise?

I don't think anyone is arguing that guys are growing vags because of chemicals. The title states that chemicals are turning boys into girls. Are you taking this literally?

That's the common sense thing I was talking about...

If science tells us that "gender" is not attributable only to reproductive organs then one's organs would not be the true definer of their sex. As linked earlier, Intersex refers to a mixture of both male and female. It may be quite possible to be 60% Male and 40% Female. It's not 100%. This has been a theory for many years and explains why some women are more masculine than others. Because perhaps they are more male than female. Again, if these chemicals were doing what the article proclaims they are then we should be seeing more feminine women. Since we are not seeing it, i'm not inclined to support that kind of an argument. As for common sense, I do remember hearing once that when you point the finger there were three more pointing back at you.

Article:
www.naturalnews.com...
Title:
Gender-Bender Chemicals are Turning Boys Into Girls

This is either scientific or it is not. It is not about what we think men and women should be. The title says boys are being turned into girls. It is either accurate or it is not. My point here is that it is not accurate.

reply to post by antonia


The article references a study. The title of the article is "unscientific" if you actually take it literally. How someone could actually do so is beyond me.

From the article:

(NaturalNews) The government of Denmark has released a 326-page report affirming that endocrine disrupting chemicals are probably continuing to the birth of fewer males and the "feminization" of existing ones. The report centers on chemicals like PVC, flame retardants, phthalates, dioxins, PCBs and bisphenol-A, all of which mimic the action of estrogen in the body. The researchers concluded that due to the prevalence of these chemicals, children could easily be exposed to high enough levels to place them at "critical risk" of harm. The chemicals have been blamed for falling sperm counts among men worldwide, and their full effects remain unknown. A study by researchers at Erasmus University in Rotterdam, Netherlands, found that male children who had been exposed to PCBs and dioxins while in the womb were more likely to dress up in female clothes and play with dolls than boys who had not been. Other research has documented a connection between prenatal phthalate exposure and "feminization" of male genitals, including smaller penises. Evidence is increasingly emerging that estrogen mimics might also be responsible for a puzzling phenomenon: fewer boys are being born than ever before. Typically, 106 male children are born for every 100 females in most populations. In recent years, however, this distribution has been shifting in favor of females, with endocrine disruptors a likely culprit.

Seems like feminization to me... Unless you think that playing with dolls is just a cultural construct.

Originally posted by unityemissions
reply to post by antonia

 

(NaturalNews) The government of Denmark has released a 326-page report affirming that endocrine disrupting chemicals are probably continuing to the birth of fewer males and the "feminization" of existing ones. The report centers on chemicals like PVC, flame retardants, phthalates, dioxins, PCBs and bisphenol-A, all of which mimic the action of estrogen in the body. The researchers concluded that due to the prevalence of these chemicals, children could easily be exposed to high enough levels to place them at "critical risk" of harm. The chemicals have been blamed for falling sperm counts among men worldwide, and their full effects remain unknown. A study by researchers at Erasmus University in Rotterdam, Netherlands, found that male children who had been exposed to PCBs and dioxins while in the womb were more likely to dress up in female clothes and play with dolls than boys who had not been. Other research has documented a connection between prenatal phthalate exposure and "feminization" of male genitals, including smaller penises. Evidence is increasingly emerging that estrogen mimics might also be responsible for a puzzling phenomenon: fewer boys are being born than ever before. Typically, 106 male children are born for every 100 females in most populations. In recent years, however, this distribution has been shifting in favor of females, with endocrine disruptors a likely culprit.

Seems like feminization to me... Unless you think that playing with dolls is just a cultural construct.

Feminization would mean boys turning into girls, hence the title of the article. Feminizaiton-The process of becoming female. Feminine-Female, ization-a suffix refering to an act, process or result. I really had to explain that? Micropenis is not "feminization", it's a defect resulting from chromosomal problems. To call it "turning into a female" is not only demeaning to females (as they don't have a penis) but also to the men with that condition. As this study has not been conducted in a very widespread area, I can't really say I find it anything other than interesting.

And yes, playing with dolls is a social construct as there is nothing "natural" about toys. They are man-made.

Originally posted by antonia

Originally posted by unityemissions
reply to post by antonia

 

(NaturalNews) The government of Denmark has released a 326-page report affirming that endocrine disrupting chemicals are probably continuing to the birth of fewer males and the "feminization" of existing ones. The report centers on chemicals like PVC, flame retardants, phthalates, dioxins, PCBs and bisphenol-A, all of which mimic the action of estrogen in the body. The researchers concluded that due to the prevalence of these chemicals, children could easily be exposed to high enough levels to place them at "critical risk" of harm. The chemicals have been blamed for falling sperm counts among men worldwide, and their full effects remain unknown. A study by researchers at Erasmus University in Rotterdam, Netherlands, found that male children who had been exposed to PCBs and dioxins while in the womb were more likely to dress up in female clothes and play with dolls than boys who had not been. Other research has documented a connection between prenatal phthalate exposure and "feminization" of male genitals, including smaller penises. Evidence is increasingly emerging that estrogen mimics might also be responsible for a puzzling phenomenon: fewer boys are being born than ever before. Typically, 106 male children are born for every 100 females in most populations. In recent years, however, this distribution has been shifting in favor of females, with endocrine disruptors a likely culprit.

Seems like feminization to me... Unless you think that playing with dolls is just a cultural construct.

Feminization would mean boys turning into girls, hence the title of the article. Feminizaiton-The process of becoming female. Feminine-Female, ization-a suffix refering to an act, process or result. I really had to explain that? Micropenis is not "feminization", it's a defect resulting from chromosomal problems. To call it "turning into a female" is not only demeaning to females (as they don't have a penis) but also to the men with that condition. As this study has not been conducted in a very widespread area, I can't really say I find it anything other than interesting.

And yes, playing with dolls is a social construct as there is nothing "natural" about toys. They are man-made.

The term feminization has many definitions which need a context to properly specify. Like I've previously said, I don't think anyone is actually taking the title of the article literally. I'm not, I'm not arguing it. GIVE IT UP! The way I'm understanding feminization in this context is when men become less masculine, and more feminine.

Toys are man-made. Preferences are ingrained within us for the most part. Let's say there's a girl and a boy in front of two toys, an army man and a doll, are you seriously telling me that the boy or girl would not have preference if it weren't for social or cultural conditioning? Seriously?

You make NO SENSE when saying that preference to toys is a social construct because it's not natural. Does the kid care, or even recognize that it's not natural? I don't know, and it doesn't even matter. The kid identifies with the toy, because of preference. Can the preference be conditioned by society? Yes. Is this the only way a preference is formed? Not a chance in hell.

Oh btw, the micropenises referenced in the article seem to have no connection to genetic defects.

[edit on 20-3-2010 by unityemissions]

Originally posted by unityemissions


Like I've previously said, I don't think anyone is actually taking the title of the article literally. I'm not, I'm not arguing it.

Then what are you arguing?

Let's say there's a girl and a boy in front of two toys, an army man and a doll, [B]are you seriously telling me that the boy or girl would not have preference if it weren't for social or cultural conditioning?[/B] Seriously?

Yep, seriously. That's what I'm telling you.

You make NO SENSE when saying that preference to toys is a social construct because it's not natural. Does the kid care, or even recognize that it's not natural? I don't know, and it doesn't even matter.

Of course it matters if it's "natural" or not. Generally one divides toys into "Boys" and "Girls". This is not done by kids. This is done by adults who have ideas about what boys and girls should be like, play with etc. A boy will be given a "boys" toy and identify that with his gender. Playing with a toy identified for a girl will result in him being told "that's a girl's toy". Watch cats, dogs, other animals. They tend to play with whatever is available. There is no preference for different toys among their genders. We are many of the things we are because that's what we are told. But, is it really that way?

Oh btw, the micropenises referenced in the article seem to have no connection to genetic defects.

I said chromosomal, not genetic. These are two different things. Those who have "micropenis" tend to be of the XX variant (female) chromosome pairing. Not all men of the XX variety will manifest any problems. Some become what is called Androgen Insensitive, this is the cause of the disorder. This can also happen in XY paired males as well. This also manifests in women as well. It can be treated with hormone therapy in youth or some others have just opted for gender reassignment. Some don't even bother to treat it as they feel it is their natural condition.


[edit on 20-3-2010 by antonia]

reply to post by antonia


It doesn't matter if it's chromosomal or genetic. Please look passed the tidbits, what's relevant is that there was no mention of either, and that what was mentioned is the ingestion of phalates druing pregnancy. Please stop bringing up things that have no relevance.

If you can't figure out what I'm arguing by now...I just dunno...I give up. Seriously. Sometimes people just don't communicate together well. Obviously this is the case. Moving on..

[edit on 20-3-2010 by unityemissions]

This is nothing new to me! I noticed girly boys/ men as far back as the 1960's . I would agree that current society has pushed males to be submissive and non aggressive. Chemicals in the food and water are a small part of the whole picture.

Gender Bending is as old as man kinds history. I wouldn't worry about it much until you see at least 50%+ of the males wearing strapless evening dresses and high heels...then it is time to worry.

Personally , I can't stand uber sexually aggressive, macho men who think muscles and a bad attitude are attractive. They aren't!

What we may be witnessing is the evolution of the human species into something more gender neutral with the sexes becoming more alike.

My mating/baby making days are long past, so I don't care one way or the other.

All I care about nowadays is getting a good full nights sleep. Having a daily bowel movement. And starting my days off with a great cup of coffee, a bran muffin, and the news.

If the guy next door is wearing his wife's lingerie and acting swishy, that his and her business...

Originally posted by unityemissions
reply to post by antonia

 

It doesn't matter if it's chromosomal or genetic. Please look passed the tidbits, what's relevant is that there was no mention of either, and that what was mentioned is the ingestion of phalates druing pregnancy. Please stop bringing up things that have no relevance.

How is it not relevant? It was brought up in the study. It matters how it forms as this would disprove their premise. Micropenis does not form during gestation. You keep saying it has no relevance because it's not supportive of the points you want made. That's not my problem.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

That's what you originally said to me. You have provided no proof for your claims. So now you are turning it around trying to proclaim I'm off-topic. Well, get the mods.

[edit on 20-3-2010 by antonia]

reply to post by antonia


Nope. You're lying. Sorry. The article doesn't mention chromosomes or genetics once. I just checked. What premise are you referring to? Let me say this YET AGAIN. The article title is NOT the same as the study. You can't say that the article is misleading, so the study in reference is non-scientific. That's illogical.

This is what I wrote in reply to you:

Generally, logic is a masculine trait and compassion is feminine. Men can be compassionate, and women can be logical, but on the whole this is how it stands. I've seen very grounded women who still root their decisions from a sense of community rather than being objective, and guys who are very emotional yet still root their decisions from situational reasoning.

What proof could you possibly expect me to come up with from what I said? There's nothing to prove. These are my observations and opinions.

[edit on 20-3-2010 by unityemissions]

Originally posted by unityemissions
reply to post by antonia

 

Nope. You're lying. Sorry. The article doesn't mention chromosomes or genetics once. I just checked. What premise are you referring to? Let me say this YET AGAIN. The article title is NOT the same as the study. You can't say that the article is misleading, so the study in reference is non-scientific. That's illogical.

I am not lying. Many of the root causes of "smaller penis" and female selection are chromosomal. Chromosomes are what lead to sex selection and defects can cause hormone disruption. Of course it must be discussed. It is the male side that selects sex. Perhaps many of these men are predisposed to girls. Here in the states more boys than girls are being born.
usgovinfo.about.com...
This country is more polluted than Denmark for certain. I'm just not buying this at all.

In these polluted areas, what you are seeing is the prevalence of humans that are neither truly male or female.

[edit on 20-3-2010 by antonia]

reply to post by antonia


It's irrelevant that chromosomal changes can cause small penis. If this was the case in these specific instances, don't you think the scientists would have noted this? Don't you think they would take this into consideration?! They didn't. What they did mention is expose to these chemicals in the womb. I've already said this. You're just not getting it. I haven't a clue why.

Here's a documentary that you might find interesting.

Google Video Link

In these polluted areas, what you are seeing is the prevalence of humans that are neither truly male or female.

Agreed.

[edit on 20-3-2010 by unityemissions]