Environmental Chemicals Are Feminizing Boys 614
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."
Denmark? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Dolls and tea sets? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:It's the chemicals!? Bollox to that! (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Transsexualism (Score:5, Informative)
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...
Blame Bush for continued lax regulation (Score:5, Informative)
FTFA:
Re:Denmark? (Score:2, Informative)
One article is from Denmark, the other article is from the Netherlands.
Re:Dolls and tea sets? (Score:3, Informative)
[Citation needed]
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Discovery+Channel [lmgtfy.com]
Re:Dolls and tea sets? (Score:5, Informative)
Those are gender roles, taught by parenting. If you stick a child in a room with a bunch of girl and boy toys, without showing them which they should be playing with, they would play with all of them.
That's the popular ideal, but it's simply not true. Social experiments and have shown that even in isolated communities, even if every attempt is made to treat boys and girls the same (so as not to condition them one way or the other), the boys will prefer playing with traditionally-male toys, and the girls will prefer playing with traditionally-female toys.
Nature, it seems, is not always politically correct.
Mixed up: Biological Gender vs. Feminization (Score:4, Informative)
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.
re: 106 boys for every 100 girls (Score:2, Informative)
Normally 106 boys are born for every 100 girls. ... In Britain, the discrepancy amounts to thousands of babies a year.
Would it have killed them to say what the observed rate is? Here's my analysis.
Google says:
United Kingdom — Birth Rate: 10.65 births/1,000 population (2008 est.)
Population, United Kingdom 61,399,118 - 2008
My calculator tells me that's 10.65 * 61,399,118 / 1000 = 653900.6067.
With 106 M:100 F ratio, we expect 106/206 * 653900 = 336473 males/year.
336473 / 653900 = 51.46% expected (106:100)
(336473 - 2000) / 653900 = 51.15% observed (about 104.7:100)
If we assume they're being honest when using the word thousands, then the observed rate in Britain is less than 104.7 boys for every 100 girls.
[Disclaimer: I'm not the same AC as the parent.]
Stop being dim with yer questions. (Score:1, Informative)
He is not suggesting that boys evolved to play with guns. He is suggesting that boys evolved with a disposition to pursue - amongst other things - adventurous endeavours, seek out excitement and to dominate others (call it leadership if you like). Messing around with guns is part of that. Playing with dollies is not.
It is a sweeping generalisation. Obviously some people do not fit the stereotype, and also obviously, chemicals can change the balance.
There was a time when if a country was attacked, that country would invade the attackers country, kill all opposition, and subjugate the population to ensure they could never attack again. Those days have gone. With the chemical changes affecting the population of the west, what they do instead, is sort of invade, but also trying not to hurt anybody. When the country being invade complains, the west gets sad and questions its purpose in life. They talk themselves out of the invasion before it has really begun and eventually withdraw their troops for fear that some of them might get hurt... ready for the whole process to start over again.
Re:It's the chemicals!? Bollox to that! (Score:5, Informative)
Re:It's the chemicals!? Bollox to that! (Score:5, Informative)
Not any plastics, but polycarbonate is a polymer of Bisphenol A -- and Bisphenol A was investigated as a synthetic estrogen before it was used in plastics. We've know that it had serious biological effects since the 1930s, but I suppose that was just another inconvenient, profit-reducing fact.
Polycarbonate is everywhere [unreasonable.org], not just in water bottles but metal cans (to prevent the metal from contact with food contents),refrigerator shelves, baby bottles, microwave cookware, and eating utensils. And it's used industrially in a wide variety of applications. It's even used to coat children's teeth as an anti-cavity measure.
Exposure to Bisphenol A has been linked to breast cancer, insulin resistance, miscarriage, obesity, prostate enlargement, early onset of sexual maturation, hyperactivity, and increased aggressiveness, as well as increased risk of heart disease and diabetes [unreasonable.org].
The chemical industry, of course, assures use that BPA can never leach from polycarbonate in appreciable amounts. There is, however, a very interesting correlation between who funds the research and what results are found. [ehponline.org]
Re:Dolls and tea sets? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:It's the chemicals!? Bollox to that! (Score:5, Informative)
The BPA situation is a textbook example of regulatory capture [wikipedia.org]. It's a sign of a sick society.
Re:Good news for Slashdot crowd (Score:4, Informative)
A lot of gay men prefer "real" men to the stereotypical effeminate gay man. There's also a subculture of ultra-masculinity known as "bears" [wikipedia.org] (for an example check out the hilarious Bear Force 1 [youtube.com]). For some there's probably some overcompensating going on due to the fear of being seen as "less of a man" because of their sexual orientation.
Re:Dolls and tea sets? (Score:5, Informative)
Ok Einstein, explain why male-to-female transsexuals that go on estrogen find they cry more, get reduced sex drive, and increased verbal ability, while the reverse is true for female-to-male transsexuals ( i.e testosterone increases libido, reduces their tendency to cry and shifts abilities from verbal to spatial orientation ).
There's been loads of studies done on how hormones impact psychological factors ranging from the effects of birth control pills ( they use estrogens and progesterones ) to the impact of hormone replacement therapy for women entering menopause. In order to make a long story short there's is little doubt that hormones influence us in all kinds of ways.
Seriously, between psychoactive substances like alcohol and caffeine, the impact of nutritional deficiencies such as a lack of iodine, and the impact of hormones like I mentioned above, it is very clear that biological factors have a very strong influence on our psychology. The effects may not correspond with common stereotypes and prejudice, and it certainly does not apply on an individual basis, but to claim it is just a matter of upbringing or social conditioning is demonstratively false regardless of how well it might fit with your preferred political ideology.
Re:Good news for Slashdot crowd (Score:3, Informative)
How so?
Where do you think the stereotype of the extremely muscular, tank-top-and-leather-wearing tough guy with a mustache came from? There's a funny (and insightful) look at Final Fight from the perspective of a gay male gamer [blogspot.com], which is why I know the answer is "Tom of Finland".
Re:Mixed up: Biological Gender vs. Feminization (Score:2, Informative)
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!
Re:It's the chemicals!? Bollox to that! (Score:1, Informative)
Fuck my mod points, what the FUCK is wrong with YOU?
Sometimes things are scary, deal the fuck with it. Here's something that SHOULD scare you: research (already done and paid for) identified BPA as an estrogen in the 1930's. BPA started being used in little boys' sippy cups in the 60's, and about 25 years later, we got metrosexuals, and shortly after that gay marriage.
Look, maybe you're confused about all this hard sciency stuff. We already know what happens when you put female hormones into men (that's how we figured out how to do a sex change operation, dipshit). We even know about whatever "masculinising" bullshit you're bringing up because the process works both ways, we can put male hormones into females and give them a beard and a lower voice. We know that extreme quantities of BPA make your dick floppy, and if that's not scary enough, then maybe your dick already is as soft as your brain.
We don't need more research into this shit, we need companies to stop putting BPA into little boys' sippy cups. If you think that the government shouldn't be forcing companies to do this or that, that's perfectly libertaian of you. In that case, the companies need to stop lying about what they put in their products and provide a complete listing of its contents so that we can make an informed decision without the companies defrauding us by selling us a harmful product and knowingly covering up the harmful ingredients.
Re:It's the chemicals!? Bollox to that! (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:Mixed up: Biological Gender vs. Feminization (Score:2, Informative)
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.
centrifugal vs cetripedal (Score:3, Informative)
I note you said "effeminate" males. However, biologically, they're "underviriziled". One cannot feminized males, because males are virilized away from women.
Re:Mixed up: Biological Gender vs. Feminization (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:It's the chemicals!? Bollox to that! (Score:3, Informative)
Does anybody remember GURPS Y2K? (Score:2, Informative)
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?
Re:It's the chemicals!? Bollox to that! (Score:2, Informative)
20 hours per week spent acquiring food is actually a very high estimate, given that modern hunter-gatherers are generally stuck with lands too infertile for agriculture.
Here’s one example of an indirect test: Are twentieth century hunter-gatherers really worse off than farmers? Scattered throughout the world, several dozen groups of so-called primitive people, like the Kalahari bushmen, continue to support themselves that way. It turns out that these people have plenty of leisure time, sleep a good deal, and work less hard than their farming neighbors. For instance, the average time devoted each week to obtaining food is only 12 to 19 hours for one group of Bushmen, 14 hours or less for the Hadza nomads of Tanzania. One Bushman, when asked why he hadn’t emulated neighboring tribes by adopting agriculture, replied, "Why should we, when there are so many mongongo nuts in the world?"
From "The Worst Mistake in the History of the Human Race" by Jarad Diamond in Discover Magazine (1987) [archive.org].
Technology did help hunter-gatherers though. Weapons are likely a lot easier than endurance hunting (interesting tidbit: humans are the best daylight distance runners in the animal kingdom), and baskets certainly make gathering a lot easier. It's just that most hunter-gatherers were nomadic (hence nothing long standing), and had little motivation to further reduce their workload. Although the time frame is a bit off, it wouldn't surprise me if the Axial switch in religion reflects the change in workload from hunter/gatherers to farmers. (Pre-Axial religions are mostly explanations of natural phenomena, Post-Axial religions more say that life sucks but there's a heavenly reward.)