This article appeared in the paper today, talking about how common chemicals have the effect of “feminizing male populations”, putting the “basic male toolkit under threat” by leading to baby boys being born with “smaller penises and feminized genitals”. Communities that are heavily exposed to such chemicals “have given birth to twice as many girls as boys”.
I find it interesting because of the way the issue is framed, and how the article glides from “smaller penises” to “boys have been born as girls instead”.
While reading the article, I also found myself thinking... so what? Okay, if it impairs the ability of endangered species to reproduce, then that's a problem. But as far as effects on human populations go, is this a big deal?
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Disfiguring chemicals turn boys into girls!.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/10850
Your question is whether apparently toxic chemicals that apparently cause genetic mutation and disfigurement to the people exposed is a big deal?
My default answer is: yes.
The question arises because the "disfigurement" is question is being born a girl instead of as a boy, or being born with a smaller penis, or with feminized genitals. They aren't being born with no eyes, or flippers instead of hands.
I have a feeling that trans individuals, or just men who have small penises, might question the use of "disfigured" to describe their bodies.
Why is it that the penis rates less concern from you than other body parts?
Imagine if the teratogenic effect being discussed was that girls were being born with undersized vaginas. No big deal, one might say: they are still reproductively capable, at least with artificial insemination, and when it comes time for birth, episiotomy is a well-established procedure. I would hope you find this scenario unacceptable.
Your comment about no eyes or hands for flippers says rather more than you intend. Mutagenic or teratogenic misdevelopment of any body part is a cause for concern; I cannot imagine any other body part being regarded so cavalierly. Your reaction of (to paraphrase) "What's the big deal, as long as it's only penises that are affected?" plays into a rather unflattering stereotype.
Your wish to take into account the feelings of those who already find themselves in these circumstances is laudable, but the right answer is not to ignore the mass poisoning of the population until all of us are similarly afflicted.
The question is: what is a 'feminized genital?' Are we talking they think because more girls are being born it means they were boys in the womb but then their genitals turned totally female? Or Their testicles are making eggs instead of sperm?
If it's a matter of "boys aren't being born manly enough," I get it. But if it's "boys are literally getting female biological traits," I think it is indeed a problem.
A guy came to my college to say this was happening to frogs. They indeed were male, and then turned female. I do believe this is a problem, not just people can't accept their boys mutating into girls.
I saw that, too, but over here, and it sounds pretty bad; however, the article I read lost me when they said this:
"...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."
OH NOES, BOYS WANT TO PLAY WITH DOLLS!! TEH WERLD IS ENDING!!!
Bad analysis aside, the rest was pretty interesting and creepy; all the crap we put in our environment has often caused Very Bad Things (tm), and maybe now that it's 'feminizing' males, we can get our (overwhelmingly) male politicians involved? Mostly I worry about the critters, though, because they have no way of getting away from our stuff. Half a sexually reproducing population having, er, sexual issues can be damaging really, really fast. I think that this is something to be concerned about, as should anything that harms others that we can control. Your last sentence is a little harsh to me, because we do things like fight diseases and poverty globally since it's a human condition issue. This problem may 'help' control our population, but that doesn't make it an issue of non-concern. I hope that made sense.
Yeah, it sounds harsh. I realize that now.
The real problem I was having was how it talks about being trans, or having a small penis, or being born a girl as OMFG MUTANT! ... okay, exaggeration. But my point is that these aren't unnatural things.
I should also that my reaction was shaped by the headline in the print edition, which reads, "Threat to male dominance".
Wow, that is truly a fantastic headline, there. ::rolls eyes:: Just as good as the line from the article I saw - of course, that was linked from Slashdot, which is not known for its stellar treatment of women in the first place....
"But my point is that these aren't unnatural things. "
Wait, what? If they are occurring as a result of exposure to pollution-borne toxins, they most certainly are unnatural.
"...or being born a girl as OMFG MUTANT!"
I suspect this specific case, among all the other effects, is what you reacted to. Being born a girl is perfectly natural and a normal outcome for any given individual, and is not a cause for concern.
However, girls being born in disproportionate numbers, as a result of chemical interference in the reproductive cycle of the entire population, is indeed a problem. First, in terms of its social ramifications (see China/India), and second because it is but one symptom of the environmental poisoning that is taking place. It's hardly likely that small penises are the only problem we'll be encountering. Fewer boys being born is probably a result of low-quality sperm (X-chromosome sperm are slightly more hardy in general than Y, so insult to the sperm generation system will affect Y sperm first), which is an indication of genetic damage. What other time bombs are out there?
"I should also that my reaction was shaped by the headline in the print edition, which reads, "Threat to male dominance". "
Hoo boy. Someone slap that headline writer with a banana cream pie.
It's a really serious problem that boys are being born with genital mutations (which is true, and very serious), but that article is describing it very poorly.
It's not a "feminization" of boys, it's a mutation. (The article doesn't mention that we all start as girls, it's just that partway through development, boys start to develop penises, but it ain't always that way). It does completely misrepresent facts, about the affects of chemicals (they don't feminize, they mutate and prevent basic development). And, yes, it does misrepresent the issue in a sexist way through the use of the word "feminizing".
If you're in Canada, the CBC recently did a really good documentary about this problem, The Disappearing Male. I say "if you're in Canada" because you'll only be able to watch it online if you're inside Canada.
It still doesn't mention that females are also affected by chemicals (we're all animals, how can we not be?). As far as mutations go, males are theoretically more likely to be affected. Females have two "X" chromosomes (XX), so when one becomes mutated, the other can take over and cover for any problems created. Therefore, it takes a greater level of exposure and mutation for the chemicals to affect the female population. Males, however, have one "X" and one "Y" chromosome (XY), so if one mutates, the other can't pick up the slack, because it performs a different task. (And I'm really sorry, I actually can't cite anything for this right now, you'll have to take my word for it... or not)
I should add that although you won't be able to watch the documentary from the USA, the CBC site has a more specific description of what the chemicals do to the male reproductive system than the Star article had in the written summary on the page (if you're interested). And hey! They don't say "feminized" once!
Thanks very much for that information, I appreciate it.
I wonder if the term "feminization" comes from the place where I suspect it was originally observed, and they carried it over without considering the social implications. Because when you talk about the feminization of male fish and amphibians, it's not so bad, but when apply the same term to humans during a time when gender roles are being questioned, it is very different.
In terms of the issue they're discussing it doesn't work, even if referring to amphibians...
But you're probably right... although when reading the article, I noticed that they never quote the author as saying "feminizing", only when they're summarizing. I wonder if the actual book refers to the mutations as "feminized" or not.
Yes. The "feminization" of an anatomical structure is a radically different concept than the "feminization" of social roles and personality. It would be helpful if people were able to contextualize the usage, and not assume the same value judgements are implied in both cases.
This goes along with something my MIL keeps sending me. I'm a vegetarian and raising my daughter as one. She keeps sending me info on how soy is making boys gay. There is a belief out there, particularly among conservative Christians (like MIL) that soy based baby formula is responsible for the "rise" in homosexuality over the past several years. There just wouldn't be so many gay people if not for baby formula:
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53327
The rise in homosexuality in recent decades is rather like the rise in left-handedness in the decades immediately preceding. (I.e., before that they used to literally beat the left-handedness out of you.)
That said, if there are documentable hormonal effects from soy, it shouldn't be swept under the rug. People tend to think of "chemicals" as being somehow different from the rest of the world, when in reality, the world is made entirely of chemicals. What exactly is food, other than chemicals?
Hm. My best friend is vegan and two-year-old son is awfully fond of purses and shoes...
As a transgendered woman and activist I can confirm that various pollutants can cause problems with sexual differentiation. I personally know several women who were the victims of D.E.S. exposure in-utero, and their stories are heartbreaking. The one thing they all have in common though is that they are not ashamed of their intersexed or transgendered status. Their problems are not with what happened to them as fetuses, but how the religious right/families/society have treated them after birth. Many people who are born with ambiguous genitalia are often surgically "corrected" at birth because society has no place for someone that doesn't fit their definitions of "normal." Since medical science has no magic "gender detector" it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that they're just guessing and that they guess incorrectly as often as not.
What would help trans people a lot more than environmental controls would be access to health care, employment protection, and safe shelters. 47% of transgendered individuals have no health coverage, and sadly no insurance companies offer any type of coverage for transgendered health needs. We are also in desperate need of employment protection. Although the majority of transgendered people are college educated, over 50% are under/unemployed and 57% report discrimination in their place of work based solely on their transgender status. On top of a lack of access to health care or employment here in Houston, TX no shelters will accept a transgendered person. It broke my heart to hear homeless shelter operators claim to be putting a trans-person out in the street (this is an actual quote) "for their own good."
Transgender Foundation of America director Cristan Williams explains the problem with a couple of true-life "For Instance" scenarios:
"A case manager called about a TG who is currently in college, but was about to become homeless. This organization was helping this TG out of a life of sexwork. The case manager reported that the TG had been is school for some time and was doing well. The case manager called me because, even though the organization was willing to pay a shelter to house this transgender, ALL shelters refused her services. So, what will happen is that this TG will become homeless, drop out of college and return to the only option she will then have: sexwork. At that point, she is at high risk of becoming HIV+, Hep C +, wind up in jail, abused and/or drug addicted.
Here is another for instance… Covenant House kicked a TG youth out of their shelter because she was TG. On the streets, she began engaging in sexwork and became HIV+. A completely different TG youth was refused case management for her HIV by Covenant House because she was TG… so she went without healthcare and could have died. Cinnamon (a TG) was murdered just down from Covenant House several years ago. Cinnamon was on the street because no place would house her. Last year, a TG who was HIV+ was allowed to die from lack of emergency care here in Houston. Not long ago, the Star of Hope turned away a TG – forced her back into the streets, where she has not been heard from again."
The factors of health care, employment, and access to safe shelters all contribute to the pandemic rate of HIV/STD infection in the transgender community and ultimately that will effect everyone, not just transgendered people.
If a toxic chemical is causing harmful mutations in the human population, it's a bad thing. Why is this even a question?
If more girls are being born than boys, that's not a problem, but if the boys are being born with mutated genitals, then that is definitely a problem. I really doubt the boys are going to be happy about that. Mutated genitals can make it very difficult to have sex, not to mention the shame a lot of the boys will experience. Also, we don't know what else the chemical is doing, and what other effects it could have. So yes, duh, it is A FUCKING BAD THING.
Maybe the article is written badly, but maybe you should have thought this out a little more.
It is a problem if there are fewer boys born than girls. Genetic variation in any population (human, endangered animal or otherwise) is important: it is the big advantage to reproducing sexually. The mixing of different genes helps to do things like stave off the spread of disease in populations... The decline isn't just 10 girls to every 9 boys... it's been as sharp as half as many boys in areas most affected. Which is a very sudden drop, and does put the future of humans as a non-endangered species at risk. (Ironically enough, we're the ones killing ourselves... whoops!). It's also adult males have 50% of the sperm count their fathers had, and up to 85% of it is mutated.
If I had read the article MarissaAO linked to before hearing about this issue elsewhere, I would probably have reacted similarly. The article is terrible, and completely misrepresents the issue.
Other than that, I agree with your comment.
"If more girls are being born than boys, that's not a problem, ..."
Um...yes it is.
How so?
Would you presume it was not a big deal if some chemical environmental factor was skewing the population in a way that disfavored females? Heck, India and China could start putting (hypothetical) male-favoring phthalates in the water, and they'd get those all-boy families they so prize. That wouldn't be a problem?
That, and what medea wrote above.
Sorry, can't continue the discussion, gotta catch an appointment.
Actually, what they've found in China (where a result of the "one child" rule was that girl babies were abandoned, aborted or adopted off shore) is that they suddenly have a huge population of guys who are absolutely miserable because they can't find a mate.
And one way or the other, it's a huge deal. Chemicals have spread across the planet. Factory emissions, pesticides and insecticides don't obey property lines or borders, and chemicals that go into the soil (let's say, plastics in a landfill) are everywhere. A lot of "developing" nations are being encouraged to use some of the more dangerous chemicals, even when they are considered too dangerous in the western world. (Many factories deemed too dangerous for our back yards are simply moved elsewhere, with less strict environmental regulation). Anything that gets into water or air travels.
All these chemicals are not only impacting human babies' bodies, they are impacting the entirety of the environment. Sexually reproducing animals in impacted areas are showing the same lack of sexual development - and lack of males being born.
Sorry for the huge ranty comment... it's an issue I've been dying to discuss with people for a little while now.
I admit, I was quick to post and slow to think through my reaction. I apologize.
This is an actual problem. I read about this problem in a book called The Riddle of Gender by Deborah Rudacille (see http://www.bookcrossing.com/journal/5873828 - highly recommended).
I'm sorry that the article framed the problem as "more girls is a bad thing" instead of what is really happening. Thanks to medea (see earlier comments) for posting a link to the CBC web site so folks can read more about this problem.
"But as far as effects on human populations go, is this a big deal?"
That's a little like saying, "As long as there are sufficient areas of the country that remain unpolluted, who cares about those who dwell in urban and industrial centers?"
If it were your little boy, you'd probably figure out how to give a shit.
Fair point about the impact being felt in mostly urban/industrial centres. And I'm sorry about being so insensitive in my post.
If my kid had a disfiguring mutation, then yeah, that would be upsetting. But if the kid were born with ambiguous genitalia, which from the article sounded like the only problem, then I'd at least like to think that I would not treat them like they had some horrible affliction. No matter what I'd like to think that I'd be able to teach my kid that human sexuality is widely varied and that they don't have to base their identity on their genitals.
Fair enough: I agree that we shouldn't stigmatize people over things that they had no control over. Still, I don't understand the stance that if it's not a major affliction, why is it a big deal?
By way of analogy, Deaf people can lead fully productive lives too, according to their own abilities, and should not be stigmatized for their lack of hearing. But if there was some chemical being introduced into our drinking water that was causing babies to be born with non-functional ears, you'd better believe I would be up in arms to get it banned.
Given a choice, I far and away prefer a non-polluted environment in which this particular issue simply wouldn't crop up -- and no, that is not to enforce gender norms.
I also agree with others here who said that the way the article was phrased is insulting, not just to females, but to trans people and intersexed people...especially the idea that anything but a "normal" to "large" penis is considered a disfigurement.
The thing that also surprised me about this article, aside from it's poor phrasing and use of the word "feminization" as "bad"...Was that fact that nothing was mentioned about toxic chemicals having an effect on reproductive organs of females. I have Endometriosis, and although no one really knows what causes it there have been many studies done that have shown that dioxin and other chemicals/pollutants in our environment is a major contributing factor. I'm sure there are other damaging effects that chemicals are having on the reproductive organs of both male and females...So how come only males were mentioned?