With Nicolas Kristof's patronizing reporting of sex trafficking in non-Western countries, I should not be surprised that he would use this gender-"ized" scare tactic to draw attention to a legitimate public health risk. However, I think that the framing of the health risks is very poorly done. It reinforces a Freudian-style castration-complex kind of anxiety. It's as if this article is written solely for men and mothers of sons. If the problem is genital deformity in both sexes, then the problem is not that boys are becoming girls, which implicitly suggests that it is bad to be a girl. The problem is toxicity and its various effects on both sexes!
Not only that, but even "humans," which I assume includes "women," will beome "undervirilized."
"[Phthalates] probably are not harmful to us adults, but it is another story for children. In girls, some research suggests that phthalates may cause early onset puberty. Most vulnerable of all, it seems, are male fetuses in the first trimester of pregnancy, just as they are differentiating their sex. At that stage, scholars believe, phthalates may 'feminize' these boys.
“'Commonly used phthalates may undervirilize humans,' concluded a study by the University of Rochester. The study, which was small, based its conclusion, in part, on measurements of 'anogenital distance' — the distance between the anus and the genitals, which is typically twice as long for males as for females. Some scholars believe that shrinkage of this distance reflects 'feminization' of male anatomy."
Also, I have no idea where he gets the idea that these chemicals are not harmful to adults. Just this week, I read that a study of college students, who drank bottled water, containing BPA, found that the chemical stayed in the body eight times longer than scientists thought. I also read yesterday in Ms. Magazine that these chemicals are linked to different kinds of cancer.
This is a valid problem to raise, but framing it the way that Kristof does is unhelpful.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Forget Cancer Risk: Boys Might Become "Feminized".
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/15011
What an idiot. I also love the "some scholars" bit. Really? Which distinguished "scholars" are those? And "distance between the anus and genitals" (whatever point on the genitals such a measurement would even use) sounds like a pretty stupid-ass measurement on which to determine the "strength" of one's "gender." Does this measurement indicate the size of the penis? They're scared of the little small penis? I wouldn't doubt it.
F'n exhausting woman-phobia.
Some male animals have becomes so 'feminized' by environmental pollutants that they produce sperm and ovum in their gonads.
Doesn't seem that calling the situation when males create the wrong gamete 'feminising' is 'women-phobic' it is actually what is happening.
Now, these animals are not humans, and I have not heard of any male humans creating ovum instead of sperm in their gametes because of these pollution, but on an biological level, male organs are not functioning at full capacity.
So feminization of males is a spectrum disorder, like FASD.
Check out Our Stolen Future by Theo Colborn, with a foreword by Al Gore.
1. Do you ever refer to the "OP" by his/her actual name, as though s/he was actually part of the conversation?
2. You're entirely missing the point that liz_99 made, which is that the whole article is about how phthalates are "bad for boys." Please look it over again. He mentions girls just once, to note that "phthalates may cause early onset puberty" - I can't really figure why this would be such a serious problem except, oh noes, girls having teh sex earlier - then implies that the toxins are something the irresponsible ignorant pregnant women will pass on to their precious little boys and it will shrink their penises.
Again, as liz_99 mentions, I'm pretty sure phthalates have also been linked to various cancers. He doesn't even mention cancer in passing - only obesity and diabetes, which are also "caused" by a million other factors.
Why does it take fear about deformed (male) sex organs for people to suddenly start caring about poisons in the items they use? I can't even begin to IMAGINE how many phthalates and other toxins are in women's sex toys - I hear not a single peep about regulating these.
He mentions girls just once, to note that "phthalates may cause early onset puberty" - I can't really figure why this would be such a serious problem except, oh noes, girls having teh sex earlier
Its not as serious of a problem, troubling because it signifies that it is meddling with their body chemistry, which could have side effects that are unknown to us, but it isn't as severe of an effect which is why it wasn't the focus of the article. I'm not entirely sure where you interpreted the last part.
He couldn't say it had no effect on girls, that would be untrue, and if he ignored girls it would have been criticized, so he listed the attributed side effect.
then implies that the toxins are something the irresponsible ignorant pregnant women will pass on to their precious little boys and it will shrink their penises.
I do not know where you got the irresponsible or ignorant part from in reading the article.
But yes, pregnant women can pass this on to their infants, its not done intentionally. But done as the result of this chemical which mimics female hormones.
He doesn't even mention cancer in passing - only obesity and diabetes, which are also "caused" by a million other factors.
According to wikipedia the carcinogen classification of phthalates was withdrawn when it was found that primates are resistant to the carcinogenic effect, while phthalates were positively identified as affecting cell resistances of insulin.
Why does it take fear about deformed (male) sex organs for people to suddenly start caring about poisons in the items they use?
It doesn't, people worry about a lot of chemicals, this is one particularly severe side effects for male fetuses and for male infants. I do not see how focusing on this a single severe side effect of a single class of chemicals in a news article is inappropriate.
I can't even begin to IMAGINE how many phthalates and other toxins are in women's sex toys - I hear not a single peep about regulating these.
Last I saw the ones with phthalates had been taken off the shelf, and advertisements for "phthalate free" were all over the place.
Lots of toy stores (online at least) have started advertising which toys are phthalate-free, but if you look at the other jelly toys sold at the same place, there are usually plenty which are *not* marked as such. It might seem like those toys w/phthalates are being pulled off the shelves, but I suspect that's just because the phthalate-free toys are marked, while the toys containing phthalates are not. (Kind of like how no companies ever advertise that they harm the environment or test on animals!) I've only ever seen *one* vendor that warned about possible phthalates in some of their toys (one of many reasons I love Babeland -- if they're not a feminist sex shop I'm not sure what is). Warning labels, please, at least! I see them all the time for aspartame, another product whose harmfulness is under debate, so I don't see why we can't do it here too.
I am a little surprised by the OP and the posts.
I do not know if the guy is right or wrong (I distrust reporting of facts without context "[...] chemical stayed in the body eight times longer than scientists thought[...] - so? [...] chemicals are linked to different kinds of cancer [...] - again, so? linked in what way? at what concentration?".
Anyway. What is upsetting about the report? The use of the term 'undervirilized' maybe?
Well, if another term were used (such as 'lowering of testosterone levels') would the OP be so flippant? If the chemicals reduced the levels of oestrogen, would the OP be so dismissive?
The fact that the measurements seem a little strange should not be used to dismiss the evidence. Maybe these chemicals *do* have an effect. That should be the worry, not the vocabulary.
I think the OP made the mistake of confusing sex and gender.
Something is going on with male sexual organs in many animals as a result of specific environmental pollutants.
So 'feminized' was a reference to sex, and not gender.
As for disparate affect on sex ... there is the early onset of puberty (females) and sterility (males).
I think one of those is worse than the other.
Now, other chemicals can cause cancer, but ones that affect fertility cause there own specific group of problems.
I think you're treating the institution of science here like some monolith with the total power to determine what is normal/abnormal. Sex is always tied to gender; the penis size is, as far as I know, tied to current dysfunctional social models of masculinity. Men are anxious about their penis size and appearance - and not because it's necessarily "biologically better" to have a bigger one. It isn't.
Even if "feminized" was a reference to sex, what is the "norm" here for men? It's basically to say that men not within this norm, for whatever reason, born with these certain "problems" or differences with their penises, are also "feminized." The (historically sexist, racist) institution of science has a way of abnormalizing things that spills over into the social world and results in, e.g., discrimination, alienation, and ostracizing from the community.
Of course science is not garbage because of this. It's extremely vital and important. But one cannot pretend that gender and other social issues are somehow disconnected from a "scientific" analysis of sex organs.
"Feminist Critique of Science,"
http://www10.antenna.nl/wise/index.html?http://www10.antenna.nl/wise/509-10/femini.html
http://www.iep.utm.edu/f/fem-epis.htm
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/feminism-epistemology/
http://www.amazon.com/Feminism-Science-Race-Gender/dp/0253205255/ref=wl_it_dp?ie=UTF8&coliid=I3637VEI2CW1SU&colid=2G5ESJAEBQ125
Very post modern... but that's not for me.
And it does not change the fact that certain chemicals act as testosterone blockers and estrogen mimickers, and but for those chemicals, males that are exposed to those chemicals suffer adverse physical development.
Saying its not a problem is like saying stunted growth from lack of food is not a problem.
Smiley, I'm sorry for not posting the link for that:
http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2009/01/28/bpa-fasting.html
You're right to question which study it is.
It is scary that this chemical might be doing bad things to humans, but it minimizes the attention on how the chemical affects girls and uses terms (made-up ones) that are sexist to get the point across. It's the delivery and not attention to the problem that is unacceptable to me.
See I don't understand this, it has more severe impact on male infants because of its introduction of increased levels of (a chemical that acts like) female hormones. Thus it is this article is specifically about a male health concern. Much like an article about prostate cancer would focus on older men, this article focuses on those affected by the deformities this chemical can cause.
In rats it quite literally removes all the male features of male rats. Hence it "emasculates them" since the mechanism is through the presence of higher levels of female hormones 'feminization' seems an equally valid descriptor. I'm not sure how this amounts to an inappropriate line of discourse or woman-phobia.
Further it isn't minimizing the effect on girls, if you note you just cited a study on how it might affect all humans, clearly those issues are also being analyzed. However, the chemical appears to have a particularly unique and severe impact on male infants, and that is what this study addressed. There was a specific health problem affecting a specific segment of the population, and the study and the news article narrowed their focus to that issue.
Just because women have more estrogen, adding additional levels of estrogen-mimicking hormones does not mean that women are less affected than men are. Indeed, studies showed several years ago that post-menopausal women taking extra estrogen were at greater risk for breast cancer, causing doctors all over the country to take women off of the replacement hormones. Early on-set puberty can cause pre-pubescent girls to risk pregnancy, which in their undeveloped bodies can pose deadly consequences. Indeed, it appears that this toxin causes men to have reproductive problems, but it also can cause life-threatening problems for women. I think that the toxins are the problem, not "undervirilize[d]" people.
Just because women have more estrogen, adding additional levels of estrogen-mimicking hormones does not mean that women are less affected than men are.
It doesn't necessarily mean that. However, the science seems to support that interpretation.
Indeed, studies showed several years ago that post-menopausal women taking extra estrogen were at greater risk for breast cancer, causing doctors all over the country to take women off of the replacement hormones.
However, in this case humans seem resistant to the carcinogenic effects of phthalates. Should this change with new studies I'm sure that will add to the list of reasons to avoid this chemical. However, as it stands now, insulin resistance, genital deformity for male infants, along with difficulty for the kidney and liver seem to be the primary issues.
Early on-set puberty can cause pre-pubescent girls to risk pregnancy, which in their undeveloped bodies can pose deadly consequences.
True, which is why it was mentioned as a side effect. However, this study was about its specific effect on male infants. Which is justified considering it has a different effect on male infants then on female infants.
I'd have no problem on a longitudinal study on female children to analyze whether the early onset puberty was caused through prenatal and infant exposure alone, or through cumulative exposure through their life. A news article on that issue would be well warranted on the release of that study, and I would not fault it if it ignored boys, or gave only a passing reference.
I think that the toxins are the problem, not "undervirilize[d]" people.
Why don't you consider the loss of male sexual characteristics a problem for male infants? Don't they have the right to develop normally?
While I find some of the scientific language on this topic problematic, I think it is just that they concentrate on the problem in young boys - males are affected far more commonly than females are by this line of chemicals - and far more seriously. (This is my theory: Boys are more likely to get chromosomal mutations because they have two separate types - XY. Therefore if one is mutated, the other cannot perform its specific task. Girls have two the same, XX. If one is mutated, the other can pull together and perform the needed task - just not to the same capacity. Still not ideal).
Of course, I agree that the gendered nature of the study is misleading - the chemicals will stay in a girl's body as much as it will in a boy's body, and they're not doing anything good in any case. But the mutations it causes in males are serious reproductive issues - college-aged men today have half their father's sperm counts, this is a trend expected to continue into the next generation(s) - which could have very bad results for us as a species (not as men/women) down the line. Part of this concern is also how quickly this has jumped up - these chemicals have only been around since the 1950s.
The reporting of this issue in the media has unfortunately been terrible, however, straying to sensational reports of "Oh my god, boys are becoming girls" far too often, which sadly trivializes the actual problem, as well as the results of this research
This is a valid problem to raise, but framing it the way that Kristof does is unhelpful.
This chemical causes complete emasculation in rats, and shows the same features of effect in male infants. What is so harmful about framing this in terms of the loss of male sexual characteristics?
If the problem is genital deformity in both sexes, then the problem is not that boys are becoming girls, which implicitly suggests that it is bad to be a girl
Except as far as I can tell, the research indicates genital deformity in boys, with evidence suggesting the potential for total emasculation, but does not suggest the same severity of consequences for girls.
Further to suggest that it would be bad for a male infant to lose male sexual characteristics does not suggest that a girl is inferior because she does not have male characteristics. It suggests that male and female infants have a right to grow and develop their own sexual characteristics without chemical toxicity poisoning them in the womb.
This. Pthalates are broken down into chemicals that act like female hormones in the body, so they do not have the same effect on females as males.
First trimester fetii don't have a gender. In this case, "feminization" refers to sex, and I consider the disruption of the development of a male fetus by an external chemical factor to be a problem on it's own. It's a problem for the individual, and if large enough, it's a societal problem.