It’s getting hard to keep track of all the different ways humanity is trying to drive itself to extinction:
Chemicals in plastics alter the brains of baby boys, making them “more feminine,” say US researchers. Males exposed to high doses in the womb went on to be less likely to play with boys’ toys like cars or to join in rough and tumble games, they found. The University of Rochester team’s latest work adds to concerns about the safety of phthalates, found in vinyl flooring and PVC shower curtains…. Phthalates have the ability to disrupt hormones, and have been banned in toys in the EU for some years. However, they are still widely used in many different household items, including plastic furniture and packaging. There are many different types and some mimic the female hormone estrogen.
The same researchers have already shown that this can mean boys are born with genital abnormalities.
Now they say certain phthalates also impact on the developing brain, by knocking out the action of the male hormone testosterone
It’s bad news in the long run for the survival of the species, I suppose, but it’s good news in short run for gay guys who like sissies—we’re out there—and girls who like sensitive straight boys.
At least they’re blaming plastics instead of feminists.
Where are these “girls who like sensitive straight boys” of which you speak? as a sensitive straight ‘boy’ i seem only to observe girls that like insensitive conflicted, albeit pretty, boys (my superfluous third thumb notwithstanding of course)
Obviously we need to join Edmonds and Portland in banning plastic bags, not taxing them.
“more feminine”… [equals] …less likely to play with boys’ toys like cars or to join in rough and tumble games.
*head explodes*
Wow. I think we’ve just set a new world record for packing the greatest possible number of unexamined assumptions about gender into a single statement.
Lends credence to the nurture and environment cause and effect theory for the existence of some psychological gender deviations withing the population. I think that the more studies like this one are made the better we will be able to address this problems and probably be able to prevent them in future generations.
@5: I agree, eugenics is the future.
Let’s start with your own loins. Let me get the alcohol swabs and a potato peeler. You might feel a slight pinch.
I hold the likes of Mr. Rogers accountable for the sensitivity and the hormones in artificial foods for the high production of estrogen.
Leave it to Loveschild to immediately leap to happy fantasizing about eliminating gender nonconformity.
When you look in the mirror, LC, do you think you see a good person? I assure you that you are mistaken.
I’m with Dr. Memory @4.
Less likely to play with cars and play rough and tumble games!
What is masculinity coming to? A boy who isn’t obsessed with cars? The horror.
Sensitive is good. Don’t forget to add the cup of attractive, boys.
@2: Maybe it’s because the insensitive, conflicted, pretty boys don’t sit around and complain about how girls just aren’t smart and deep enough to realize how sensitive and date-able they really are.
Chin up, though. I’m sure eventually a girl will be lucky enough to realize how idiotic and superficial she’s been, and be grateful that you’ve been so patient with shallow morons like her. Then true love will come calling.
Have U.S. researchers checked out a toy store lately? The aisles are clearly divided by gender specified toys meant to acculturate boys and girls. There is no middle ground – boy toys are geared towards war and violence, girl’s are all about looking pinkly whorish and shopping.
If not viewing girls as objects and finding non violent solutions to the world’s problems means boys are becoming sissified I’m okay with that. I don’t see it happening though.
The soft, doughy, tenderization of young men could also be attributed to them spending all their time drinking Mt. Dew and playing ruff & tumble video games.
If you’ve ever paid heed to Adam Carolla, both on radio and tv, he provides enough food for thought on the U.S. of A. sissymen.
Of course he also loves to toot the horn like other “Listen to me! Listen to Me’s!”
ie. Savage -both michael and dan -, limbaugh, bryan williams, ‘Mad’ Men, and the usual gang of idiots.
@6 When two men are able to reproduce between themsleves (*never*) then you can go on comparing the type of prevention that i meant with eugenics.
“less likely to play with boys’ toys like cars or to join in rough and tumble games”
And more likely to develop a rabid obsession with bicycles, miniature light-rail trains, cuddling, and Tetris.
@15: Right again, Loveschild– adoption should be outlawed, nobody should be allowed to take possession of a child they themselves did not produce, nor should infertile couples be allowed to adopt. Grandparents should lose all guardianship rights upon cessation of their reproductive capabilities.
I love pretty boys! Too bad I’m a little too old to benefit from a fresh crop of phthalate engineering.
I think that the more studies like this one are made the better we will be able to address this [sic] problems and probably be able to prevent them in future generations.
Like what, LC? – chemical castrations, Hitlerian genetic modifications – or less likely, plastic and bigot banishment?
@5. Okay, so, the whole nature vs. nurture thing? If a boy was born with some sort of inability to process testosterone (“the action of the male hormone testosterone” had been knocked out), then that would be nature. Nature means you’re born that way (even if it’s cause by something “unnatural” like phthalates). Nurture means you got that way based on things that happened to you after you were born. So, if you’re born without a hand, that’s nature. If your hand is cut off in an accident, that’s nurture.
Anyways, I’m assuming your comment is some sort of reference to your view that homosexuality (“psychological gender deviations”) is a result of “nurture” factors (it’s a decision one makes or a psychological problem), as opposed to being innate. Just keep in mind that, as demonstrated by this study, “nature” doesn’t always mean genetic. It can mean anything that happens hormonally or developmentally within the womb.
[I know I’m not going to convince her that gay people are born that way, but, baby steps, people, baby steps.]
The problems go much deeper than boys acting like poofters. Exposure to such compounds can lead to serious problems in genital development. Pthalates are also used in cheap dildos. Yes, a compound which can have adverse effects on genitals is used for products which are used on genitals.
@12: “There is no middle ground – boy toys are geared towards war and violence, girl’s are all about looking pinkly whorish and shopping.
“If not viewing girls as objects and finding non violent solutions to the world’s problems means boys are becoming sissified I’m okay with that. I don’t see it happening though.”
That said, if boys are becoming *too* sissfied, maybe the true fear here is that eventually they wouldn’t just be sensitive and non-violent, but we’ll start treating them like girls and making *them* up as pinkly whores for shopping too. Shit.
@15 – I thought you meant “prevention” in terms of babies/fetuses (feti?) getting environmental contaminants, along such lines as removing lead from paint, or not feeding them the milk of juiced-up cows. I am confused as to what the breeding capabilities of a couple of dudes has to do with either this post, your previous argument, OR eugenics. I guess what I mean is, uh, what the fuck are you talking about?
Also, @2, I LOVE sensitive straight boys!!!
This perfectly complements the effect of birth control on women’s tastes – women like girl men more and phthalates deliver!
“the better we will be able to address this problems and probably be able to prevent them in future generations.”
You assume there’s something inherently wrong in variation there. That’s a big step.
“When two men are able to reproduce between themsleves (*never*) then you can go on comparing the type of prevention that i meant with eugenics.”
Nice to know you, and you alone, can see into the future to know that two men will “*never*” be able to reproduce. I’d like your premonitions on, say, the Kentucky Derby so I know where to put my money.
@15, There will always be billions of straight people willing to have babies so that the gays won’t have to if we don’t want to. Society will not end if marriage equality is granted – which it will be very soon. Straight people will still continue to populate the earth.
In the meantime, get rid of all the plastic in your house so that your boy doesn’t turn into a homo.
@26 – damned straight.
@5
‘cept trans peeps been around since the beginning of time.
I am not a “problem.” Fuck you.
@5
i love the nature / nurture circle jerk.
Since your religious beliefs and political positions are choices, I guess you’ll have to give those up until we can find a right-wing-evangelical-fucktard gene.
Somebody probably already said this, but um. . . do we really have a “survival of the species” problem?
Seems like we need a few more governors to make-up for all of that longer life expectancy crap.
Are girls impervious to the effects of these toxic chemicals?
I don’t know, Dan. I think it could be a good thing. Keep individuals, I’m refering to a certain poster who is always spouting religious rhetoric, from contaminating the gene pool. Always, focus on the positive.
FYI, sensitive straight men are freakin’ hot imho.
@31, That would be a no. Girls can look forward to precocious puberty and a higher breast cancer risk.
So, forget bottles. It’s in your cash register receipts.
I call bullshit on this whole thing. People are so stuck in their ways that they can’t see how society might simply be changing.
@34 – I try not to eat those.
So what you’re saying is that baby boys that play with wood instead turn out to be stoic men? BaddaBOOM!
C’mon people! I can’t do this by myself!
This entire thing is a crock. BPA is a weak estrogen mimetic that is quickly metabolized into a biologically inert form. Anyone who ingests non-fermented soy products, flaxseed oil, and a gazillion other common food products bearing phytoestrogens will have their estrogen sensitive genes upregulated by a factor that is several orders of magnitude larger than they’d get by drinking out of their nalgene bottle.
Not sure what’s driving this panic, but it certainly isn’t a sober assessment of the the pharmacological data.