Slashdot Mirror


Environmental Chemicals Are Feminizing Boys

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."

19 of 614 comments (clear)

  1. Dolls and tea sets? by JimboFBX · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I don't understand how hormones will dictate that you will enjoy dolls and tea sets and cross dress. Aren't all those things... cultural...?

    1. Re:Dolls and tea sets? by FlyingSquidStudios · · Score: 4, Insightful

      So you're saying humans evolved to play with things that didn't exist when we became humans?

    2. Re:Dolls and tea sets? by StackedCrooked · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Commentary: Monkeys, girls, boys and toys: A confirmation Comment on “Sex differences in toy preferences: Striking parallels between monkeys and humans” http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2643016/

    3. Re:Dolls and tea sets? by emilper · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Of course, genetic information evolved over the last two million years can help identify dolls dressed in red as "feminine" and dolls dressed in green and wearing a hard hat as "masculine" ... except for 3000 years red was the "male warrior" color and only during the last 100 years were the "camo" colors fashionable in the army ... and the same genes are helping young children identify plastic tanks or knifes as "male toys" while plastic beds, plastic baby carriages and plastic table sets are identified (due to genes, hormone concentrations or something else of physiological origin) as "female toys".

       

    4. Re:Dolls and tea sets? by ceoyoyo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The girls play with dolls, boys play with cars dichotomy is a bit of a simplification to make a nice sound bite. There is some gender bias towards the type of toy: girls tend to be less interested in playing with toys representing inanimate objects, and much more interested in playing with toys that represent people, or at least animals, than boys are. The real difference, however, is in the style of play. Girls tend to construct elaborate social situations in their play (tea parties, for example) while boys play is much less socially structured and more geared towards action.

      If you want the sound bite, when boys play with dolls they make them fight. When girls play with dolls, they make them talk.

      The differences are not purely environmental. The pattern is seen across all cultures and, as a poster pointed out in another thread (including published paper), are seen in non-human primates as well.

      PS: the Guardian and the Telegraph are newspapers. They are not known for publishing scientific papers. If you want actual scientific papers you will have to read scientific journals, where the link between certain chemicals, feminized male behaviour and male/female birth ratio changes are much better established.

  2. Re:Rednecks? by QuoteMstr · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Quite frankly it's amazing, and is mostly a result of huge investment in education after the second world war.

    It's important to note that the Danes are not genetically more gifted than the rest of us. The idiotic English chavs and the Danes were the same people a few tens of generations ago. The things that make us stupid are cultural anti-intellectualism and childhood malnutrition, not some inborn deficit that applies to whole swaths of people.

    If we're heading for an idiocracy, it's not because idiots breed more. Their children have the same genetic gifts as anyone else, on the whole. Instead, it's our neglect of education. Really, it's appalling that teachers aren't some of our most highly-paid professionals.

  3. Re:Is it such a bad thing? by Thiez · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If that is how you feel by all means try to be more feminine. The rest of us prefer to have a choice in these matters, rather than have the choice made for us (indeed, forcing choices upon others is, according to your lists, a masculine thing, and therefore it has no place in the feminine society you seem so keen to create).

    Besides, I like to think self-reliance, strength and competition are positive qualities. Many of the most famous artists were guys, so I'm not sure 'art' should be considered a 'feminine element', nor is there reason to believe that 'thoughtfulness' should be on that list of yours.

    Maybe you could try pointing to some sources to convince us that you didn't just pull those lists out of you ass, then some more sources to show that the masculine elements are bad for society, and then some more to convince us that forcing emasculation on 50% of your citizens is ethical.

  4. Re:Rednecks? by ultranova · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's appalling but understandable when you consider that most teachers are government employees...

    They are government employees in Danmark, too. In fact I'd imagine a higher proportion of them are, based on grandparent's point about investment on education - just who do you think did that?

    But then again, that's not compatible with libertarian/conservative/far right agenda, so you ignored it and posted pointless propaganda for your pet ideology instead. Just as pretty much everyone else who has strong opinions - left or right - on these matters - or any matter, really - does. That's an unfortunate human trait, and one we really have to get rid of if we're to advance as a species.

    --

    Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

  5. Well at some point... by tjstork · · Score: 5, Insightful

    blah blah, and more polar bears exhibit hermaphroditic features, and there's a higher percentage of Florida alligators that are female, and girls are hitting puberty earlier these days, and, and, an

    Well, I would think that, when you people are ignoring that animals in nature are all becoming genders, 10 year old girls are getting pregnant, that, you might look up from your Wii and say, "hey, you know, the whole planet is fucked up, and we might well, actually try to FIX IT." Sometimes when there is a fire, you have to yell more than once.

    Just a thought.

    --
    This is my sig.
  6. Re:Rednecks? by Jurily · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Instead, it's our neglect of education. Really, it's appalling that teachers aren't some of our most highly-paid professionals.

    The fundamental flaw of education is:

    1) it treats all children the same. You should learn this, because you are 7 years old. Nothing else matters. You could be a grand master in chess, but you're not allowed to write cursive yet! You have been reading since you were 3? Well, forget it, you're going to learn it all over again!

    2) No child left behind. We're treating everyone the same, and that treatment will be the one required for the dumbest. The smart ones are bored out of their skull? Who cares!

  7. It's not the chemicals, it's the media by RogueWarrior65 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    IMHO, the media is mostly to blame for this. Next time you're bored, start counting how many commercials and sitcoms on TV (and even movies) portray the husband/boyfriend as a complete neanderthal moron and the wife/girlfriend as a level-headed rocket scientist. And can anyone remember when TLC had stuff worth watching? Now you are told what not to wear, that gay men know what women want in a straight guy, that it's okay to have eight or more ankle-biters and yet still have a completely dysfunctional family.

  8. Don't knock the social sciences by QuoteMstr · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It's not the fault of social scientists, really, that their error bars are huge. Unlike physics, social sciences (and medicine, and psychology) are constrained by quaint ideas like informed consent and humanitarian compassion, and these restrictions are enforced by hard-nosed institutional review boards who need to approve every experiment. Social scientists (and doctors, and psychologists) are talented people, but they're forced to make do with milquetoast studies and the exceedingly rare "natural experiment". Some of the most informative studies in the area, in fact, would be off-limits today.

    It's easy to decry the social sciences as fuzzy, but could you do better under the same constraints? We should commend social scientists for at least trying.

  9. Re:Rednecks? by Voyager529 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I'd also like to add #3: Parents taking little to no interest in their child's education, and expecting the schools to assume that role in its entirety, and intervening only to tell of the teacher who took away their little angel's cell phone because they were texting during class. I dunno about you, but my parents were very proactively involved in my education. They taught me reading, writing, and 'rithmetic before I set foot in kindergarten, and they never stopped assisting and requiring accountability. They encouraged me to think critically and ask questions. If I didn't know, they encouraged me to look it up - and then asked me what I learned after I did. They bought me stuff at yard sales to take apart and I had to identify the basic components inside. If I got in trouble with a teacher and my parents found out about it (and since my parents worked in the school I went to, that was inevitable), the other half would come when I got home, and it wouldn't be pretty. I survived the wooden spoon, I survived learning to eat a balanced diet, I survived homework, and I survived not watching TV until I was 5 or 6.

  10. Re:Transsexualism by hitmark · · Score: 3, Insightful

    i cant help wonder if the suicide attempt comes from trying to fit into a world that reacts pretty much like a "uncanny valley" ones you look like one gender, but behave like a different one.

    this may also be why homosexuality is such a "hot" topic.

    i guess we humans prefer our lives to work along the lines of "walks like a duck, quacks like a duck"...

    --
    comment first, facts later. http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm
  11. Re:Rednecks? by Artifakt · · Score: 5, Insightful

    When I was a child of seven, my public librarian talked to me a bit, and gave me an adult card with a note to personnel that I was authorised to use the adult reading room, the music stacks, microfiche and all other facilities.
            In high school, my swim team had to meet at the civic center pool about 1 PM to fit its schedule. Local people made the decision to move all of us to an 11 AM lunch, a decision that didn't need to be ratified by the superintendent of schools - in fact, it took only the team coach asking an assistant principal to set it up with the cafeteria staff, and they served 12 people an hour early to make it happen.
            High school fencing was a club, (even though our club beat several college teams). We picked a schedule when the gym was empty, and had a couple of keys to it, which were carried at one point or another by just about everyone on the team, with no problems.
            This was all 35 years or more ago. It seems totally absurd now to say practically every responsible adult I knew as a child bent 'the rules', knew which way to bend them, and it all worked pretty damned well, but that was the way of things.

    --
    Who is John Cabal?
  12. Re:Rednecks? by MasterOfMagic · · Score: 5, Insightful

    That was back when exercising discretion wasn't a one-way ticket to being sued.

  13. Re:It's the chemicals!? Bollox to that! by FiloEleven · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The parent post is quite incendiary, but makes very good points.

    One of particular interest to me is the issue of the aforementioned companies using these chemicals and continuing to claim that they are not dangerous. A libertarian idealist would say that the information will get out (as it is, slowly) and if it concerns people (as it should) they will find somewhere else to buy sippy cups. But this seems inefficient to me, and it seems like in the meantime there is widespread, preventable harm being done.

    Now, I think the hundreds of thousands of pages of regulations on the books do more harm than good, because 1) they tend to be so burdensome that small and innovative businesses are squeezed out by multinationals, who 2) have regulations written in their favor (someone else mentioned regulatory capture), and 3) we already have laws to punish fraud (such as marketing an unsafe item as safe). Yet I don't see a good answer to a problem like this one without regulation.

    First, it is my understanding that no single product is solely responsible; it is due to the chemicals' presence in lots and lots of things, so wouldn't any single company's statement that their product is safe be kind of true, invalidating claims of fraud? Second, presumably a lot of harm is being done due to the widespread use of these chemicals, and the companies' reporting record is abysmal, so I find it unsatisfying to just say "you need to be aware of what you are purchasing." That's good in theory and probably worked well when goods were mostly made from natural items, but when everything is made out of 900 different kinds of plastic, organic compounds, synthetic materials, and who knows what else, you could spend eight hours a day trying to trace everything you use and still come up short.

    So how would a real libertarian respond? To be clear, I like a lot of libertarian ideals, but there are instances where I don't see it working well. The common thread I see among them is "trouble caused by many people doing little things in aggregate."

  14. Re:Rednecks? by apoc.famine · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I taught high school for five years, and that was what I saw. Because all kids were tracked according to age rather than ability, you had a wide range of ability in every class. As a teacher, you've got a few choices:
     
    1) Teach to the middle. Too hard for the dumb kids, to easy for the smart kids, but most kids get something out of it.
    2) Teach too easy or two hard.
    3) Try to teach to each kid's needs.
     
    #3 is the one everyone would like to do. But it's ridiculously hard to do. I had kids in a class who were taking geometry and had algebra under their belt, and kids who couldn't multiply even with a calculator. Kids who didn't really understand what decimal places were all about. If I stop to give them instruction in the basic things that they need to learn the material I'm actually supposed to be teaching, I get questioned as to why I'm not teaching it. If your lessons are different for every kid, suddenly you need to prove that they're fair and appropriate for every kid. Otherwise, you're setting yourself up for a lawsuit when you fail Johnny but pass Timmy, and they were learning different material.
     
    My most successful classes were ones filled with homogeneous populations of kids. When they were all at about the same level, I could teach a lot of material very quickly. Treating all kids the same is a terrible failing in the US today. It's not the only one, but it's one of the leading causes of our issues.
     
    As secondary cause is that teachers are given a tough job, but not the freedom to do it as it needs to be done. If I taught all the kids in my classes how to actually do science, they would have all failed the government-mandated science test. Why? Because it doesn't test whether or not you can do science, it tests whether or not you're motivated to remember facts about science that you have been exposed to and then scribble in a bubble.
     
    What's the motivation for kids to do that? There isn't any. My master's thesis was on that very topic. Their test scores don't get sent to their parents, don't go on transcripts, and most of the time, don't even go back to their teachers. Yet those scores determine how well a school is functioning, from a government standpoint.
     
    There are a lot of things broken about the US educational system. The top issue is that teachers can't just teach what kids need to learn. We have to jump through all these ridiculous hoops, and prove that we're poor teachers, because that what the test requires.
     
    A good science teacher is not one who teaches kids to be masters at filling in bubbles on a sheet of paper with the wrote memory of facts. Fix the current methods of assessing teaching, and you're getting much closer to solving the root of the problem.

    --
    Velociraptor = Distiraptor / Timeraptor
  15. Re:Rednecks? by mcgrew · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I don't want to be a parent before I am in a place to become one.

    I was the same as you -- I wanted to wait until I could afford to be a parent, but guess what? You never can. I wound up realizing that, and was 33 before I became a dad. You think it's hard to get up at 3:00 AM to feed the baby at age 20, try it when you're over 30! I'm 57 and still not a grandparent. If there's one thing about my life I'd change, it would be waiting.