Log in

View Full Version : It's official: Men really are the weaker sex



spartan
7th December 2008, 23:44
Evolution is being distorted by pollution, which damages genitals and the ability to father offspring, says new study. Geoffrey Lean reports

The male gender is in danger, with incalculable consequences for both humans and wildlife, startling scientific research from around the world reveals.

The research – to be detailed tomorrow in the most comprehensive report yet published – shows that a host of common chemicals is feminising males of every class of vertebrate animals, from fish to mammals, including people.

Backed by some of the world's leading scientists, who say that it "waves a red flag" for humanity and shows that evolution itself is being disrupted, the report comes out at a particularly sensitive time for ministers. On Wednesday, Britain will lead opposition to proposed new European controls on pesticides, many of which have been found to have "gender-bending" effects.

It also follows hard on the heels of new American research which shows that baby boys born to women exposed to widespread chemicals in pregnancy are born with smaller penises and feminised genitals.

"This research shows that the basic male tool kit is under threat," says Gwynne Lyons, a former government adviser on the health effects of chemicals, who wrote the report.

Wildlife and people have been exposed to more than 100,000 new chemicals in recent years, and the European Commission has admitted that 99 per cent of them are not adequately regulated. There is not even proper safety information on 85 per cent of them.

Many have been identified as "endocrine disrupters" – or gender-benders – because they interfere with hormones. These include phthalates, used in food wrapping, cosmetics and baby powders among other applications; flame retardants in furniture and electrical goods; PCBs, a now banned group of substances still widespread in food and the environment; and many pesticides.

The report – published by the charity CHEMTrust and drawing on more than 250 scientific studies from around the world – concentrates mainly on wildlife, identifying effects in species ranging from the polar bears of the Arctic to the eland of the South African plains, and from whales in the depths of the oceans to high-flying falcons and eagles.

It concludes: "Males of species from each of the main classes of vertebrate animals (including bony fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals) have been affected by chemicals in the environment.

"Feminisation of the males of numerous vertebrate species is now a widespread occurrence. All vertebrates have similar sex hormone receptors, which have been conserved in evolution. Therefore, observations in one species may serve to highlight pollution issues of concern for other vertebrates, including humans."

Fish, it says, are particularly affected by pollutants as they are immersed in them when they swim in contaminated water, taking them in not just in their food but through their gills and skin. They were among the first to show widespread gender-bending effects.

Half the male fish in British lowland rivers have been found to be developing eggs in their testes; in some stretches all male roaches have been found to be changing sex in this way. Female hormones – largely from the contraceptive pills which pass unaltered through sewage treatment – are partly responsible, while more than three-quarters of sewage works have been found also to be discharging demasculinising man-made chemicals. Feminising effects have now been discovered in a host of freshwater fish species as far away as Japan and Benin, in Africa, and in sea fish in the North Sea, the Mediterranean, Osaka Bay in Japan and Puget Sound on the US west coast.

Research at the University of Florida earlier this year found that 40 per cent of the male cane toads – a species so indestructible that it has become a plague in Australia – had become hermaphrodites in a heavily farmed part of the state, with another 20 per cent undergoing lesser feminisation. A similar link between farming and sex changes in northern leopard frogs has been revealed by Canadian research, adding to suspicions that pesticides may be to blame.

Male alligators exposed to pesticides in Florida have suffered from lower testosterone and higher oestrogen levels, abnormal testes, smaller penises and reproductive failures. Male snapping turtles have been found with female characteristics in the same state and around the Great Lakes, where wildlife has been found to be contaminated with more than 400 different chemicals. Male herring gulls and peregrine falcons have produced the female protein used to make egg yolks, while bald eagles have had difficulty reproducing in areas highly contaminated with chemicals.

Scientists at Cardiff University have found that the brains of male starlings who ate worms contaminated by female hormones at a sewage works in south-west England were subtly changed so that they sang at greater length and with increased virtuosity.

Even more ominously for humanity, mammals have also been found to be widely affected.

Two-thirds of male Sitka black-tailed deer in Alaska have been found to have undescended testes and deformed antler growth, and roughly the same proportion of white-tailed deer in Montana were discovered to have genital abnormalities.

In South Africa, eland have been revealed to have damaged testicles while being contaminated by high levels of gender-bender chemicals, and striped mice from one polluted nature reserved were discovered to be producing no sperm at all.

At the other end of the world, hermaphrodite polar bears – with penises and vaginas – have been discovered and gender-benders have been found to reduce sperm counts and penis lengths in those that remained male. Many of the small, endangered populations of Florida panthers have been found to have abnormal sperm.

Other research has revealed otters from polluted areas with smaller testicles and mink exposed to PCBs with shorter penises. Beluga whales in Canada's St Lawrence estuary and killer whales off its north-west coast – two of the wildlife populations most contaminated by PCBs – are reproducing poorly, as are exposed porpoises, seals and dolphins.

Scientists warned yesterday that the mass of evidence added up to a grave warning for both wildlife and humans. Professor Charles Tyler, an expert on endocrine disrupters at the University of Exeter, says that the evidence in the report "set off alarm bells". Whole wildlife populations could be at risk, he said, because their gene pool would be reduced, making them less able to withstand disease and putting them at risk from hazards such as global warming.

Dr Pete Myers, chief scientist at Environmental Health Sciences, one of the world's foremost authorities on gender-bender chemicals, added: "We have thrown 100, 000 chemicals against a finely balanced hormone system, so it's not surprising that we are seeing some serious results. It is leading to the most rapid pace of evolution in the history of the world.

Professor Lou Gillette of Florida University, one of the most respected academics in the field, warned that the report waved "a large red flag" at humanity. He said: "If we are seeing problems in wildlife, we can be concerned that something similar is happening to a proportion of human males"

Indeed, new research at the University of Rochester in New York state shows that boys born to mothers with raised levels of phthalates were more likely to have smaller penises and undescended testicles. They also had a shorter distance between their anus and genitalia, a classic sign of feminisation. And a study at Rotterdam's Erasmus University showed that boys whose mothers had been exposed to PCBs grew up wanting to play with dolls and tea sets rather than with traditionally male toys.

Communities heavily polluted with gender-benders in Canada, Russia and Italy have given birth to twice as many girls than boys, which may offer a clue to the reason for a mysterious shift in sex ratios worldwide. Normally 106 boys are born for every 100 girls, but the ratio is slipping. It is calculated that 250,000 babies who would have been boys have been born as girls instead in the US and Japan alone.

And sperm counts are dropping precipitously. Studies in more than 20 countries have shown that they have dropped from 150 million per millilitre of sperm fluid to 60 million over 50 years. (Hamsters produce nearly three times as much, at 160 million.) Professor Nil Basu of Michigan University says that this adds up to "pretty compelling evidence for effects in humans".

But Britain has long sought to water down EU attempts to control gender-bender chemicals and has been leading opposition to a new regulation that would ban pesticides shown to have endocrine-disrupting effects. Almost all the other European countries back it, but ministers – backed by their counterparts from Ireland and Romania – are intent on continuing their resistance at a crucial meeting on Wednesday. They say the regulation would cause a collapse of agriculture in the UK, but environmentalists retort that this is nonsense because the regulation has get-out clauses that could be used by British farmers.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/its-official-men-really-are-the-weaker-sex-1055688.html

Drace
7th December 2008, 23:54
Sweet

Bilan
8th December 2008, 03:05
cool

Hit The North
8th December 2008, 14:22
"Gender bender chemicals". :lol:

Make 'em free on the NHS now!

hugsandmarxism
8th December 2008, 21:08
As one who had a bad encounter with Brazilian wax, I must say, I always knew that women were the stronger sex :laugh:

h0lmes
10th December 2008, 13:59
These chemicals may be interfering but not necessarily disrupting. Evolution will continue on it's course.

Module
11th December 2008, 18:10
These chemicals may be interfering but not necessarily disrupting. Evolution will continue on it's course.This.
I don't think it's right to say they are the 'weaker' sex, rather the sex is just changing. I think people forget that both men and women are of the same species, rather than two different ones, it doesn't make sense that one half would be inherently 'weaker' than the other, simply different. These differences are changing, yes, and this is neither a good nor bad thing in itself, and is meaningful only in reference to the social values we place on gender differences.
Maybe it will do us some good to have these social values knocked around a little.
But anyway, this isn't exactly breaking news, I posted a (albeit very vague ;)) thread similar to this in the HPG forum ages ago! :D

Lynx
12th December 2008, 22:54
Evolution is too slow a process to respond to these changes. Either research the effects of these chemicals with the goal of cleaning up our environment, or research parthenogenesis.

S.O.I
14th December 2008, 16:27
you guys think this is cool? im scared out of my pants!

Dean
15th December 2008, 17:07
This.
I don't think it's right to say they are the 'weaker' sex, rather the sex is just changing. I think people forget that both men and women are of the same species, rather than two different ones, it doesn't make sense that one half would be inherently 'weaker' than the other, simply different. These differences are changing, yes, and this is neither a good nor bad thing in itself, and is meaningful only in reference to the social values we place on gender differences.
Maybe it will do us some good to have these social values knocked around a little.
But anyway, this isn't exactly breaking news, I posted a (albeit very vague ;)) thread similar to this in the HPG forum ages ago! :D

I keep trying to rep your posts because they're so awesome :blushing:
You tend to be a light of sanity in the midst of insanity. Way to go :)

RedAnarchist
15th December 2008, 17:13
you guys think this is cool? im scared out of my pants!

Not all of you, I presume?:lol:

Rosa Provokateur
15th December 2008, 17:18
I'm not sure what to think... is this good or bad and how would it effect gay/straight relations?

Brother No. 1
24th December 2008, 04:32
well it is a proven fact that women live longer then men

piet11111
24th December 2008, 18:06
well it is a proven fact that women live longer then men

and they have been doing that long before these "gender bender" pollutants where being used so its not related.

Brother No. 1
24th December 2008, 18:12
true just though it needed to be let out though

TC
24th December 2008, 18:59
I love science news reporting, it always follows the same formula:

Researcher conducts study with extremely limited empirical findings,

Researcher draws unjustifiable speculative conclusions from findings, declares it SCIENCE!

Reporter takes SCIENCE! and extrapolates broad social conclusions that appeal to things a large percentage of their readership kindof wanted to believe all along and declares that SCIENCE! has officiated their prejudices/assumptions/etc

Editors title said articles in sexed up ways.

Patchd
26th December 2008, 15:20
This.
I don't think it's right to say they are the 'weaker' sex, rather the sex is just changing. I think people forget that both men and women are of the same species, rather than two different ones, it doesn't make sense that one half would be inherently 'weaker' than the other, simply different. These differences are changing, yes, and this is neither a good nor bad thing in itself, and is meaningful only in reference to the social values we place on gender differences.
Maybe it will do us some good to have these social values knocked around a little.
But anyway, this isn't exactly breaking news, I posted a (albeit very vague ;)) thread similar to this in the HPG forum ages ago! :D
This.

Moreover, the left seems to have a tendency to get over-joyous about women being "stronger" or seen as "stronger" than men, as if matriarchal oppression was better than patriarchal oppression :rolleyes: ...gender equality means that, equality for all regardless of sex, female, male and those who do not associate with a certain gender.

Pogue
26th December 2008, 15:36
I love science news reporting, it always follows the same formula:

Researcher conducts study with extremely limited empirical findings,

Researcher draws unjustifiable speculative conclusions from findings, declares it SCIENCE!

Reporter takes SCIENCE! and extrapolates broad social conclusions that appeal to things a large percentage of their readership kindof wanted to believe all along and declares that SCIENCE! has officiated their prejudices/assumptions/etc

Editors title said articles in sexed up ways.

lol, so true

TC
26th December 2008, 17:57
How to analyze SCIENCE! reports:


Evolution is being distorted by pollution, which damages genitals and the ability to father offspring, says new study.In general, whenever people make sweeping claims about evolution, or, pollution its going to be bullshit because those are such broad categories that there is simply no method to study evolution or pollution in their totality.



The research – to be detailed tomorrow in the most comprehensive report yet published – shows that a host of common chemicals is feminising males of every class of vertebrate animals, from fish to mammals, including people.
Oh really...does it show that or did a researcher either 1. pump some lab animals full of chemicals in concentrations never found in the wild and then over attribute their findings to animals in wild conditions 2. find some screwed up animals, find that they had ingested common chemicals (who'd have thought, with them being common and all!) and then attributed their screwed up ness to having ingested them; despite the fact that other animals in the same environment had no such affect.

Reading on to see which error they've made:



It also follows hard on the heels of new American research which shows that baby boys born to women exposed to widespread chemicals in pregnancy are born with smaller penises and feminised genitals.
That sounds, highly bullshit, given that there would be absolutely no way to control for relevant variables in any hypothetical study of that sort.

Which is to say, any set of pregnant women exposed to 'widespread chemicals' is likely to also have differential exposure to other demographic conditions (race, class, weight, diet, age, etc) than organic-all-the-way chemical free pregnant women.

But...fear mongering about chemicals feminizing our boys! (sounds like Dr. Strangelove) makes for a better summary.



"This research shows that the basic male tool kit is under threat," says Gwynne Lyons, a former government adviser on the health effects of chemicals, who wrote the report.Yah, right. There is just about no way "the research" could possibly "show" that. I'm sure that line helped encourage some grant money to flow his way though.



Wildlife and people have been exposed to more than 100,000 new chemicals in recent years, and the European Commission has admitted that 99 per cent of them are not adequately regulated. There is not even proper safety information on 85 per cent of them."adequately" and "proper" by what standards exactly? Arbitrary ones? In pop SCIENCE! arbitrary standards are frequently mixed with empirical data to arrive at fascinating and frightening conclusions.



Many have been identified as "endocrine disrupters" – or gender-benders – because they interfere with hormones.But lets call them "gender-benders" cause that sounds so much cooler and more concerning in a 'what is becoming of our world!' sort of way.


These include phthalates, used in food wrapping, cosmetics and baby powders among other applications; flame retardants in furniture and electrical goods; OMFG, but I use food wrapping/cosmetics/baby powders/furniture/electronics in my/my-loved-ones every day lives! This has personal relevance in its scary implications!! I will definitely continue to buy this paper and/or fund this research!

Or, alternatively, you might realize that chemicals that when used in extreme doses when injected into lab rats might not necessarily have the same effects when simply one among many components of items that people don't even ingest in whole form let alone inject in concentrated forms.


The report – published by the charity CHEMTrustAh okay, so, the unusually high level of bullshit in this article isn't entirely the fault of the stupid-researcher-exploitive-science-reporter cycle explained in my earlier post...it was actually generated by a political pressure group.

This is, moreover, apparently not new research but a pressure groups selective summary of existing research...which means that the entire article grossly misrepresents non-news as if it was newsworthy and new. Unfortunately most people would never notice this on reading the article, they'd just read 'GENDER BENDERS THREATEN BASIC MALE "TOOL KIT" OH MY."


and drawing on more than 250 scientific studies from around the world – concentrates mainly on wildlife, identifying effects in species ranging from the polar bears of the Arctic to the eland of the South African plains, and from whales in the depths of the oceans to high-flying falcons and eagles.So, basically, if you didn't get it, this article isn't actually based on a scienctific study at all, its just based on a charity's politically motivated report on existing research...its like a news article based on a leaflet.



It concludes: "Males of species from each of the main classes of vertebrate animals (including bony fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals) have been affected by chemicals in the environment.Yah...lets jump straight to the political pressure group not affiliated with any research institution's conclusions rather than look at how they got there.



"Feminisation of the males of numerous vertebrate species is now a widespread occurrence. All vertebrates have similar sex hormone receptors, which have been conserved in evolution. Therefore, observations in one species may serve to highlight pollution issues of concern for other vertebrates, including humans."Is it now a widespread occurance or has it always been a widespread occurance? That would actually take logitudinal studies to even suggest let alone demonstrate. Were all 250 studies in the report long term logitudinal studies or were they more likely cross-sectional studies sampling populations a particular point in time (which is much more likely since this is obviously much cheaper and more common).

They don't say, so a reader doesn't know, but most wouldn't think to ask the question, which is what makes SCIENCE! reporting an easy way to manipulate an audience.




Fish, it says, are particularly affected by pollutants as they are immersed in them when they swim in contaminated water, taking them in not just in their food but through their gills and skin. They were among the first to show widespread gender-bending effects.They also have the shortest generations, the greatest species varity, and significantly many change sex as an evolved reproductive response to local gender imbalances...but probably best not to let the other possible explanations for this risk any doubt that its just because of their higher exposure to the scary chemicals.


Female hormones – largely from the contraceptive pills which pass unaltered through sewage treatment – are partly responsible,LOL SURE. 1 part contraceptive pill 1^100000000000000000000000+ parts water will be 'partly responsible' for it, emphasis on partly, as in unverifiably negiligably small if any...

I mean...thats just the most obviously bullshit claim after a moment of thought, but most people (aparently the reporter and editors) don't take that moment.


Feminising effects have now been discovered in a host of freshwater fish species as far away as Japan and Benin, in Africa,Yah it must be the birth control pills and advanced sewage works in Benin doing it...except that there are neither in Benin, its a country with raw untreated sewage and an insanely high fertility rate balanced out by a low life expectancy...but lets not let that get in the way of blaming the chemicals even when it...makes...no sense whatsoever.


Professor Lou Gillette of Florida University, one of the most respected academics in the field, warned that the report waved "a large red flag" at humanity.Ooh, at Humanity!. What 'field' is this anyways?


And a study at Rotterdam's Erasmus University showed that boys whose mothers had been exposed to PCBs grew up wanting to play with dolls and tea sets rather than with traditionally male toys.LOL sure. Never mind the fact that its impossible to tell how much exposure anyone has had to PCBs and everyones had some.



Communities heavily polluted with gender-benders in Canada, Russia and Italy have given birth to twice as many girls than boys, which may offer a clue to the reason for a mysterious shift in sex ratios worldwide. Normally 106 boys are born for every 100 girls, but the ratio is slipping. It is calculated that 250,000 babies who would have been boys have been born as girls instead in the US and Japan alone.That doesn't even make sense on a basic biological level: the sex of a fetus is determined by whether the original zygote was formed by an egg and an x chromosome carrying sperm cell or a y chromosome carrying sperm cell, not the hormonal conditions.


Anyways...I'd go through this more but I think you get the point...

Its important to take a critical perspective on articles like this because...most of them use pretense to scientific studies as a way of stating claims to authority when they don't establish anything of the sort.

This isn't of course to say that we shouldn't beconcerned about chemicals in the environment, but that in general its vital to ensure that our opinions and perspectives are not formed by dogma on faith simply labeled 'science.'

Forward Union
26th December 2008, 18:04
well it is a proven fact that women live longer then men

That's not true. Men have a lower life expectancy, but that's because most conflicts are fought by men.

So men are more likely to end up in a conflict, whether thats a fight in the pub or a war. Consiquently their life expectancy goes down.

But a man in iscolation is no more or less likely to die before a woman.

TC
26th December 2008, 18:21
Well, actually, the statement that "its a proven fact that women live longer than men" is true, its just that the implication that the reason(s) for this is biological and not social or otherwise environmental is unproven.

This is actually a fairly good example of taking data (women live longer on average then men) and then making intuitively plausible but in fact incorrect conclusions from that data (i.e. biology is responsible).

DesertShark
3rd January 2009, 15:01
These chemicals may be interfering but not necessarily disrupting. Evolution will continue on it's course.
Evolution does not have a course or a plan.


This.
I don't think it's right to say they are the 'weaker' sex, rather the sex is just changing. I think people forget that both men and women are of the same species, rather than two different ones, it doesn't make sense that one half would be inherently 'weaker' than the other, simply different. These differences are changing, yes, and this is neither a good nor bad thing in itself, and is meaningful only in reference to the social values we place on gender differences.
Maybe it will do us some good to have these social values knocked around a little.
But anyway, this isn't exactly breaking news, I posted a (albeit very vague ;)) thread similar to this in the HPG forum ages ago! :D
Women are built hardier because they are the child bearing sex. Having something growing inside of you and draining all your resources is hard work and not for the weak.


That's not true. Men have a lower life expectancy, but that's because most conflicts are fought by men.

So men are more likely to end up in a conflict, whether thats a fight in the pub or a war. Consiquently their life expectancy goes down.

But a man in iscolation is no more or less likely to die before a woman.
At all stages of development (fertilization (X vs Y sperm) up to adulthood when the numbers even out), there are more males then females. This is because males are less likely to survive then females under the same/equal conditions. So its not just because of conflicts.