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.
[...]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.
[...]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.
[...]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.
For anyone interested, I highly recommend watching The Disappearing Male.
- Joshfulton.blogspot's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Front page
Comments
Boys born as girls? Um, No.
This is Fleet St journalism. Estrogen-mimicking pollutants are a huge problem and damage developing male fetuses more than female (they damage both!). They do NOT turn male fetuses (XY) into female (XX). (The damage in females can be, for instance, reduced fertility, greater tendency to reproductive tract cancers.)
Both sexes start out with a "female" pattern. That's why XO (Turners syndrome), who don't have the extra genetic information needed for fertility, look female. As the fetus develops, the gonads and external genitalia develop into the patterns appropriate for each sex. The two are just rearrangements of each other.
What the estrogen-mimicking pollutants do is interfere with the rearrangement during development, so testes may not descend, the penis may look more like a largish clitoris, the genitourinary tract may not close so the urethra ends as it does in females rather than being enclosed within the penis, and so on. These changes do not make boys into "girls." They'd never be able to become pregnant. The changes confuse the hell out of the parents, but that's different.
Sorry to rant on about this, but this has triggered my biology prof background. :)
Well, that's interesting, but
Well, that's interesting, but the bottom line is that the percentage of people born is starting to skew towards female and it's because of chemicals in the environment.
www.joshfulton.blogspot.com
hormone mimicking pollution
causes all sorts of very serious problems, but "skewing toward female" isn't the right way to put it, although maybe I'm misunderstanding what you're trying to say.
Estrogen mimicking pollution does *not*, in mammals, change the actual sex ratio at conception. (It does in some frogs, reptiles, and crocodilians, but I don't think that's what you were talking about.) It can skew sex ratios at birth and also later in infancy, because male fetuses and infants tend to be less resistant toward many kinds of damage so there's a slightly higher death rate. That, too, is different from "turning boys into girls."
The female fetuses are also damaged, sometimes in very unexpected ways, such as the way *daughters* of women exposed to DES (diethylstilbesterol), who were not themselves exposed, wound up having higher rates of reproductive tract cancers.
If "skew toward female" were really what was happening, women wouldn't be damaged. That's not what is happening here. These not-really-female-chemicals with quasi-hormone activity cause all sorts of pathologies in women. They just don't cause their penises to shrink or their sperm production to falter . . . for obvious reasons.
I think it's very important not to give people the false sense that this affects only one sex, or is a male-female issue, which is why the Telegraph's terminology annoys me so much. Although, if panic about micropenises was what finally got these horrible pollutants banned, then, hey, whatever works!
i was thinking something like that...
when hamster dick stops being a mere pejorative and starts being a possible reality, maybe some priorities will shift.
Skewing towards female: "But
Skewing towards female: "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."
I understand men aren't the only ones affected, but when I'm talking about 'skewing' I'm talking about the birth rates.
www.joshfulton.blogspot.com
I find it ironic
That the push to allow all kinds of chemicals in our environment, mostly by men wanting to make more and more profit, will lower the number of fertile men. The "sins of the father" come to fruition.
So, those that are unhappy with the population growth will get their wish - lower population numbers - but at what expense and without them wanting it done this way? You would think we could do better, it seems.
Perhaps if the men are more "feminized" we will have less war, if the cause of war is more masculine men that are more territorial and have a stronger push to acquire material goods for status. That might be one good thing, since it appears we have to adapt to it.
Makes me think of some sci-fi stories, about there being few fertile men in the future.
"A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. So is a lot." - Albert Einstein
It was only a matter of time
for a comment like this.
Sorry, I don't fall in love with politicians. I'm not that desperate.
I have to say, I'm quite skeptical
about the claim that women in power would lead to less war.
People seem to forget that the largest uprising the Roman Empire ever saw was lead by a woman.
He who will not reason is a bigot; he who cannot is a fool; and he who dares not is a slave.
- Sir William Drummond
Solution
I think I have a solution to this problem. We all know that we cannot let the 50-50 balance between the number of women and men change too much or we will see a horrible battle one day where women savagely kill each other over attempts to get the attention of men. Here is my solution: quit playing Elton John music to pregnant ladies. This will keep many a penis from becoming a vagina. casino online