Log in

View Full Version : Why boys are turning into girls



bcbm
7th November 2009, 19:50
Here's something rather rotten from the State of Denmark. Its government yesterday 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, nappies, sunscreen lotion and moisturising cream.


The 326-page report, published by the environment protection agency, is the latest piece in an increasingly alarming jigsaw. A picture is emerging of ubiquitous chemical contamination driving down sperm counts and feminising male children all over the developed world. And anti-pollution measures and regulations are falling far short of getting to grips with it.


Sperm counts are falling so fast that young men are less fertile than their fathers and produce only a third as much, proportionately, as hamsters. And gender-bending chemicals are increasingly being blamed for the mystery of the "lost boys": babies who should normally be male who have been born as girls instead.


The Danish government set out to find out how much contamination from gender-bending chemicals a two-year-old child was exposed to every day. It concluded that a child could be "at critical risk" from just a few exposures to high levels of the substances, such as from rubber clogs, and imperilled by the amount it absorbed from sources ranging from food to sunscreens.


The results build on earlier studies showing that British children have higher levels of gender-bending chemicals in their blood than their parents or grandparents. Indeed WWF (formerly the World Wildlife Fund), which commissioned the older research, warned that the chemicals were so widespread that "there is very little, if anything, individuals can do to prevent contamination of themselves and their families." Prominent among them are dioxins, PVC, flame retardants, phthalates (extensively used to soften plastics) and the now largely banned PCBs, one and a half million tons of which were used in countless products from paints to electrical equipment.


Young boys, like those in the Danish study, could end up producing less sperm and developing feminised behaviour. 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.


And it is in the womb that babies are most vulnerable; a study of umbilical cords from British mothers found that every one contained hazardous chemicals. 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.


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, so much so that some 250,000 babies who statistically should have been boys have ended up as girls in Japan and the United States alone. In Britain, the discrepancy amounts to thousands of babies a year.


A Canadian Indian community living on ancestral lands at the eastern tip of Lake Huron, hemmed in by one of the biggest agglomerations of chemical factories on earth, gives birth to twice as many girls as boys. It's the same around Seveso in Italy, contaminated with dioxins from a notorious accident in the 1970s, and among Russian pesticide workers. And there's more evidence from places as far apart as Israel and Taiwan, Brazil and the Arctic.


Yet gender-benders are largely exempt from new EU regulations controlling hazardous chemicals. Britain, then under Tony Blair's premiership, was largely responsible for this – restricting their inclusion in the first draft of the legislation, and then causing even what was included to be watered down.Confidential documents show that it did so after pressure from George W Bush's administration, which protested that US exports "could be impacted".


Now the Danish government is planning to lobby to have the rules toughened up. It is particularly concerned by other studies which show that gender-bending chemicals acting together have far worse effects than the expected sum of their individual impacts. It wants this to be reflected in the regulations, citing its discovery of the many sources to which the two-year-olds are exposed – modern slings and arrows, as it were, of outrageous fortune.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthcomment/geoffrey-lean/6418553/Why-boys-are-turning-into-girls.html

Invincible Summer
7th November 2009, 22:36
It's sort of frustrating how social conservatives get freaked out any time gender is not easily delineated into either "male" or "female." So long as these people live healthy, happy lives, then why does it matter if they're a guy or a girl biologically?

This article sort of sounds like patriarchal bullshit - "Oh SHIT! Us powerful men are becoming outnumbered! Shit! Boys aren't following antiquated gender roles!"

Muzk
7th November 2009, 23:28
I dream of a peacefull, genderless society where women reproduce using an endless amount of conservated semen

Comrade Gwydion
7th November 2009, 23:55
Exactly what is wrong with boys becoming more feminised?

By the way, que? It goes from danish to british to dutch (rotterdam university)

9
8th November 2009, 00:09
I find the responses to this thread a little weird...
There is nothing wrong, of course, with men and women (or boys and girls) resisting gender norms. But as far as children being exposed to chemicals which change their biology... I certainly don't think that's something we ought to be applauding. Nor do I think it is appropriate to condemn research on the matter as "patriarchal bullshit". If there are toxic chemicals which somehow alter peoples' biology in popular products, we sure as hell ought to know about it.

Schrödinger's Cat
8th November 2009, 07:09
It's sort of frustrating how social conservatives get freaked out any time gender is not easily delineated into either "male" or "female." So long as these people live healthy, happy lives, then why does it matter if they're a guy or a girl biologically?

This article sort of sounds like patriarchal bullshit - "Oh SHIT! Us powerful men are becoming outnumbered! Shit! Boys aren't following antiquated gender roles!"

More like, "Oh shit, boys are losing their ability to procreate, which might have negative affects on the entire population as a whole."

The Essence Of Flame Is The Essence Of Change
9th November 2009, 09:21
I find the responses to this thread a little weird...
There is nothing wrong, of course, with men and women (or boys and girls) resisting gender norms. But as far as children being exposed to chemicals which change their biology... I certainly don't think that's something we ought to be applauding. Nor do I think it is appropriate to condemn research on the matter as "patriarchal bullshit". If there are toxic chemicals which somehow alter peoples' biology in popular products, we sure as hell ought to know about it.
This.What the heck people?Being exposed to DNA altering chemicals daily is not about gender roles or patriarchy.If you found out that there is a radiation leak somewhere that caused genetic problems in the residents would you launch a campaign against racism to people with two heads?

NecroCommie
9th November 2009, 13:48
I welcome this news in the hopes of being exposed to chemicals that change me into a superhuman capable of telekinesis.

More seriously: Even if the genetic mutilation of the homo sapiens were not an issue, the heterosexual women would have some major dull time if all the men morphed away.

Dr. Rosenpenis
9th November 2009, 16:16
I agree that this is a serious environmental poblem. I also agree that the patriarchal tone of that article is disturbing. Can't really expect much better from the Telegraph, though, can you?

Invincible Summer
10th November 2009, 20:20
Yeah I'll admit I was being a bit hasty when responding to the thread. I guess I just took the prhases like "developed feminised behaviour" and got all pissy and unnecessarily critical about them.

danny bohy
10th November 2009, 21:17
Exactly what is wrong with boys becoming more feminised?

By the way, que? It goes from danish to british to dutch (rotterdam university)

I think your mssing the point. its not really about the feminisation its about corperations poisoning peoples children. Its mutation caused by chemicals; no different than a mother giving birth to a two headed child because of pollution.

narcomprom
10th November 2009, 21:44
I find the responses to this thread a little weird...
I guess you haven't the article. It goes against basic biology, good taste and common sense.

They're smashing a strawman there. All the fanciest "gender-bender" cancer inducing chemicals they've listed there have long been banned. The european REACH regulation is the strictest of it's kind as it is.

Despite all sublime intentions, practically, the partially absurd regulations serve as inofficial tariffs. they are defending western capital-intensive production from labour-intensive production from china, russia or bangladesh.

The article is, apparently, trying to enrage the uneducated angry male adience either in support of some irelevant revisions or just for the heck it, because the uneducated angry male audiences like to rage.

Manifesto
10th November 2009, 22:04
I remember that there is also a problem with women flushing their estrogen medication down the toilet getting into the water supply (although relatively low) which causes the same effect I believe?

KC
10th November 2009, 22:06
Edit

Dr. Rosenpenis
11th November 2009, 00:11
I find it quite patriarchal for them to repeatedly cite the manifestation of so-called "feminine" qualities in boys as a cause for concern in and of itself. What is troubling is the fact that peoples are suffering biological alterations from pollution. I highly doubt that the writter would have adopted the same tone if the consequences were bigger dicks and greater interest in toy cars.

Schrödinger's Cat
11th November 2009, 01:25
But huuuge schlongs turn a lot of heterosexual women off. ;)

chegitz guevara
11th November 2009, 03:09
If it's doing this to us, what is it doing to other species?

Invincible Summer
11th November 2009, 09:30
I find it quite patriarchal for them to repeatedly cite the manifestation of so-called "feminine" qualities in boys as a cause for concern in and of itself. What is troubling is the fact that peoples are suffering biological alterations from pollution. I highly doubt that the writter would have adopted the same tone if the consequences were bigger dicks and greater interest in toy cars.

That's what I was getting at

Dimentio
11th November 2009, 13:45
I find the responses to this thread a little weird...
There is nothing wrong, of course, with men and women (or boys and girls) resisting gender norms. But as far as children being exposed to chemicals which change their biology... I certainly don't think that's something we ought to be applauding. Nor do I think it is appropriate to condemn research on the matter as "patriarchal bullshit". If there are toxic chemicals which somehow alter peoples' biology in popular products, we sure as hell ought to know about it.

On top of everything, the chemicals could also have adversive effects on health. I have become more and more sceptical of the use of chemicals.

Jazzratt
11th November 2009, 15:20
On top of everything, the chemicals could also have adversive effects on health. I have become more and more sceptical of the use of chemicals.

The use of what chemicals though? It's a nonsense to say you are against all chemicals and it's hardly worth saying that you are against dangerous chemicals. So what, actually, are you saying here?

Luís Henrique
11th November 2009, 19:14
On top of everything, the chemicals could also have adversive effects on health. I have become more and more sceptical of the use of chemicals.
Yes, for instance, dihydrogen oxide is often lethal.

Luís Henrique

Luís Henrique
11th November 2009, 19:35
A Canadian Indian community living on ancestral lands at the eastern tip of Lake Huron, hemmed in by one of the biggest agglomerations of chemical factories on earth, gives birth to twice as many girls as boys. It's the same around Seveso in Italy, contaminated with dioxins from a notorious accident in the 1970s, and among Russian pesticide workers. And there's more evidence from places as far apart as Israel and Taiwan, Brazil and the Arctic.

Brazil, hm?

So I went to the Brazilian Census page and looked up for figures on the relation between boys and girls under 1 year old.

This is what it says:

Boys:1,635,916
Girls: 1,577,394

The proportion is 1,0371 boys for each girl. Slightly below the reported "normal" 1,06 boys per girl.

But does it have to do with "chemicals"?

I have searched for the proportion in a few cities. For instance, Cubatão, in São Paulo state, (in)famous as the most polluted industrial in Brazil, has

1,098 boys
1,032 girls

or 1,063953 boys per girl - on the "normal" average.

While mostly rural Barra do Garças, in Mato Grosso state, has

466 boys
468 girls

or 0,995726 boys per girl.

So the proportion, or disproportion, doesn't seem linked to pollution.

Luís Henrique

narcomprom
11th November 2009, 23:12
Brazil, hm?

So I went to the Brazilian Census page and looked up for figures on the relation between boys and girls under 1 year old.

This is what it says:

Boys:1,635,916
Girls: 1,577,394

The proportion is 1,0371 boys for each girl. Slightly below the reported "normal" 1,06 boys per girl.

But does it have to do with "chemicals"?

I have searched for the proportion in a few cities. For instance, Cubatão, in São Paulo state, (in)famous as the most polluted industrial in Brazil, has

1,098 boys
1,032 girls

or 1,063953 boys per girl - on the "normal" average.

While mostly rural Barra do Garças, in Mato Grosso state, has

466 boys
468 girls

or 0,995726 boys per girl.

So the proportion, or disproportion, doesn't seem linked to pollution.

Luís Henrique
Moreover it cannot possibly be caused by pollution. A chemical couldn't care less if he devours a girlish X-chromosome within a sperm cell or a manly Y-chromosome. Of course this is only one of many roaring pythonesque absurdities in this silly reactionary rag.