Ambrya hit it on the head IMO.
I think seperate toys and games, different "acceptable" activities for boys and girls and the whole idea of fostering a specific gender mindset is for a lot of people really unhelpful. Especially people who grew up in broken homes or who have issues with self-confidence and identity to start with. It relates to a wider concept of how you should assert yourself in a group or relationship.
If you hate being the arrogant guy or the giggling girl it can be difficult to initiate contact with others in a way you feel comfortable with. And if you're not comfortable with who you are you're definitely going to be insecure, insecurity leads to anger, anger leads to hate, hate leads to..
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- WWYD?
WWYD?Follow
Bode - 100 Holy Paladin - Lightbringer
Atomicflea wrote:
Bradley's parents took him to Dr. Ken Zucker, a therapist who believes that no child under 11-12 can make a true decision regarding their gender identity and that it is, essentially, a question of the environment they are placed in and the choices they are given.
I'd be surprised if there was much legitimate research to back this up. In my limited experience there is a huge kick from the child at a young age which is virtually impossible to divert.
Fight it and you will be unhappy. Embrace it and you've got a great chance to be happy. Dodging unsympathetic people is easier then dodging yourself.
I would not delay the onset of puberty. Even if they are sure they are of the opposite gender at 13, I think you support them as much as possible without hormones until they reach 18 (approximately) and allow them the choice at that point.
bodhisattva wrote:
I would do whatever I needed to, including getting the hell over my own personal prejudices, to give my child the tools to live a fulfilled, happy life.
ElneClare wrote:
While being able to get support for being transgender at an early age is both better for a child's mental health and outwear appearance, I can't say it justifies giving a child hormones to delay onset of puberty. I also feel the that risk of taking hormones as an adult female is too risky, when one looks at how they been link to breast cancer, has a lot to do on how I feel about the issue.
My concern (in both cases) is with the idea of identifying a child as "transgendered" at that age in the first place. Lots of young boys like to play with dolls and play "dress up", etc. Lots of young girls like to play with cars and footballs and whatnot as well. And very very very few of them decide later in life that they need some kind of gender transformation to be complete or something.
Sending the boy off to school in a dress is just as damaging IMO as taking away his "girl toys". IMO, a decent balance should work. Let the kids play with whatever they want, but keep their dress, hair, etc "normal" for their sex. You shouldn't assume that because a boy wants to wear a dress, or a girl doesn't like to wear dresses that this in any way represents a significant gender identity problem, or that gentle nudging to "wear boy/girl cloths" is going to harm them at all. Most kids go through phases like this at some point. Parents who simply tell them to wear the appropriate clothing without otherwise making a big deal out of it will avoid a hell of a lot of therapy later on. If you allow it to become a big deal *then* you'll have problems.
While his methods are wrong IMO, the doctor who believes that this sort of gender choice can't/shouldn't be made this early is spot on IMO. While there can be a genetic component that will cause some people to be predisposed to the gender opposite that of their sex, I'd wager you'll ***** a lot more kids up by allowing or encouraging environmental "transgender" actions then you'll ***** up by disallowing them. Statistically, there are a whole lot more male gendered boys who will go through a phase of wanting to wear dresses and whatnot, and will be screwed over by parents thinking that he's a transgender and encouraging him to "be whatever he wants to be", then there are actual genetically predisposed transgendered males. And the later group wont change their core feelings no matter how much you tell them to wear "boy clothes".
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
I find this particularly interesting, as I was raised in a rather "gender-neutral" environment. That is, my sister and I were pretty much not given the typical "girl-toys" and "boy-toys". I wasn't raised in a GI-Joe testosterone filled childhood, she wasn't given Barbies or anything of that nature. I remember her favorite toy was a Thomas the Tank Engine train set. Mine was a bike that was a non-committal shade of blue. There was very little pink in our house. No frilly dress-up dolls. No cutty stabby ninja-robot action figures. It's not that our parents were mean, or denying us things we wanted, we were just given things that couldn't be construed as being specific to either gender. I certainly didn't feel deprived at all.
*shrug*
I don't consider that a bad thing. I've always had the belief that, at their core, the two genders are essentially the same in the end. And if/when I have kids, I would probably raise them the same way. I don't know how possible it would be to identify gender confusion in the first place like that. Perhaps it has to do more with identifying yourself and your kids as a person instead of as a gender.
It's an interesting way to look at it, I think.
Edited, May 12th 2008 9:44pm by DodoBird
*shrug*
I don't consider that a bad thing. I've always had the belief that, at their core, the two genders are essentially the same in the end. And if/when I have kids, I would probably raise them the same way. I don't know how possible it would be to identify gender confusion in the first place like that. Perhaps it has to do more with identifying yourself and your kids as a person instead of as a gender.
It's an interesting way to look at it, I think.
Edited, May 12th 2008 9:44pm by DodoBird
DodoBird wrote:
I find this particularly interesting, as I was raised in a rather "gender-neutral" environment.
Haha!
Bode - 100 Holy Paladin - Lightbringer
Seems like a circular argument and confused seperate points.
Presuppose gender identity as a pick n mix see - what - works - best - for - you process is inherently bad, conclude that children should have "sensible" limits to what they can wear and how they should behave. Well, fine. "I disagree to allowing gender identities to be intermingled because it would @#%^ people up" would have sufficed.
Then confuse allowing surgery / hormone therapy at a young age and allowing surgery / hormone therapy at say, 18; because the former is widely thought of as bad and the other you obviously believe is also "dangerous" though you don't say this explicitly.
In fact, confuse surgery / hormone therpay or anything similiar with a much, much broader issue of gender roles. Justify this by supposing that if we allow "transgender" attitudes from a young age more people will seek body modification in future.
So you believe mixing gender identity / gender roles will result in people seeking body modifications.
Surely it's more complicated than that. Just because a guy acts particularly feminine or has feminine qualities / emotional inclinations or a girl the opposite does NOT mean they want hormones or surgery. Some will definitely. Not all. We can't say how much. I would guess really not a lot. Other people might disagree.
Which brings us to another point: if they really desire these changes, why shouldn't they have them if it makes them happier?
Your argument so far is that it wouldn't make them happier.
On what grounds?
edit: wait, another assumption I overlooked. Suppose parents have the deciding say in how a child's gender identity is developed. 100% with you. Suppose a parent cannot be neutral; i.e. a boy must either be raised as a boy, a girl, or a horrible mutant transgender sea monster. But why have the boundaries set so strictly? Isn't that the whole issue?
Whatever you do 99% of boys will grow up and want to stick their willies in other peoples holes and see them moan and ***. The rest comes down to whatever makes them happy, content, productive, community spirited, independant, "what you can do for America" sorts.
Edited, May 12th 2008 10:53pm by Youshutup
Presuppose gender identity as a pick n mix see - what - works - best - for - you process is inherently bad, conclude that children should have "sensible" limits to what they can wear and how they should behave. Well, fine. "I disagree to allowing gender identities to be intermingled because it would @#%^ people up" would have sufficed.
Then confuse allowing surgery / hormone therapy at a young age and allowing surgery / hormone therapy at say, 18; because the former is widely thought of as bad and the other you obviously believe is also "dangerous" though you don't say this explicitly.
In fact, confuse surgery / hormone therpay or anything similiar with a much, much broader issue of gender roles. Justify this by supposing that if we allow "transgender" attitudes from a young age more people will seek body modification in future.
So you believe mixing gender identity / gender roles will result in people seeking body modifications.
Surely it's more complicated than that. Just because a guy acts particularly feminine or has feminine qualities / emotional inclinations or a girl the opposite does NOT mean they want hormones or surgery. Some will definitely. Not all. We can't say how much. I would guess really not a lot. Other people might disagree.
Which brings us to another point: if they really desire these changes, why shouldn't they have them if it makes them happier?
Your argument so far is that it wouldn't make them happier.
On what grounds?
edit: wait, another assumption I overlooked. Suppose parents have the deciding say in how a child's gender identity is developed. 100% with you. Suppose a parent cannot be neutral; i.e. a boy must either be raised as a boy, a girl, or a horrible mutant transgender sea monster. But why have the boundaries set so strictly? Isn't that the whole issue?
Whatever you do 99% of boys will grow up and want to stick their willies in other peoples holes and see them moan and ***. The rest comes down to whatever makes them happy, content, productive, community spirited, independant, "what you can do for America" sorts.
Edited, May 12th 2008 10:53pm by Youshutup
In the end, too, if we don't have any definitive opinion about what treatment makes sense, you follow the adage of "do no harm" and neither restrict the child from things generally deemed female or introduce hormone treatment until the child can make his/her own decision.
Edited, May 13th 2008 1:36am by Annabella
Edited, May 13th 2008 1:36am by Annabella
Turin wrote:
Seriously, what the f*ck nature?
Sending the boy off to school in a dress is just as damaging IMO as taking away his "girl toys".
Not if you teach him to box first. I went to High School with an openly gay kid, and I'm old enough for that not to have been at all common. Some of my fondest high school memories are of him kicking the living **** out of various would-be bullies.
Disclaimer:
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
Dar Williams wrote:
I won't forget when Peter Pan came to my house, took my hand
I said I was a boy, I'm glad he didn't check.
I learned to fly, I learned to fight, I lived a whole life in one night
We saved each other's lives out on the pirate's deck.
And I remember that night when I'm leaving a late night with some friends
And I hear somebody tell me it's not safe, someone should help me
I need to find a nice man to walk me home.
When I was a boy, I scared the pants off of my mom,
Climbed what I could climbup on
And I don't know how I survived, I guess I knew the tricks that all the boys knew
And you could walk me home, but I was a boy, too.
I was a kid that you would like, just a small boy on her bike
Riding topless, yeah I never cared who saw.
My neighbor came outside to say, "Get your shirt," I said "No way
It's the last time, I'm not breaking any law."
And now I'm in a clothing store, and the signs say Less is More
More that's tight means more to see, more for them, not more for me
That can't help me climb a tree in ten seconds flat
When I was a boy, see that picture? That was me
Grass stained shirt and dusty knees.
And I know things have gotta change,
They got pills to sell, they've got implants to put in, they've got implants to remove
But I am not forgetting
That I was a boy too.
And like the woods where I would creep, it's a secret I can keep
Except when I'm tired, except when I'm being caught off guard.
I've had a lonesome awful day, the conversation finds it's way
To catchng fireflies out in the backyard
And I tell the man I'm with about the other life I lived
And I say now you're top gun, I have lost and you have won
And he says "Oh no, oh, no, can't you see
When I was a girl, my mom and I, we always talked
And I picked flowers everywhere that I walked
And I could always cry, now even when I'm alone I seldom do
And I have lost some kindness,
But I was a girl too.
And you were just like me, and I was just like you."
I said I was a boy, I'm glad he didn't check.
I learned to fly, I learned to fight, I lived a whole life in one night
We saved each other's lives out on the pirate's deck.
And I remember that night when I'm leaving a late night with some friends
And I hear somebody tell me it's not safe, someone should help me
I need to find a nice man to walk me home.
When I was a boy, I scared the pants off of my mom,
Climbed what I could climbup on
And I don't know how I survived, I guess I knew the tricks that all the boys knew
And you could walk me home, but I was a boy, too.
I was a kid that you would like, just a small boy on her bike
Riding topless, yeah I never cared who saw.
My neighbor came outside to say, "Get your shirt," I said "No way
It's the last time, I'm not breaking any law."
And now I'm in a clothing store, and the signs say Less is More
More that's tight means more to see, more for them, not more for me
That can't help me climb a tree in ten seconds flat
When I was a boy, see that picture? That was me
Grass stained shirt and dusty knees.
And I know things have gotta change,
They got pills to sell, they've got implants to put in, they've got implants to remove
But I am not forgetting
That I was a boy too.
And like the woods where I would creep, it's a secret I can keep
Except when I'm tired, except when I'm being caught off guard.
I've had a lonesome awful day, the conversation finds it's way
To catchng fireflies out in the backyard
And I tell the man I'm with about the other life I lived
And I say now you're top gun, I have lost and you have won
And he says "Oh no, oh, no, can't you see
When I was a girl, my mom and I, we always talked
And I picked flowers everywhere that I walked
And I could always cry, now even when I'm alone I seldom do
And I have lost some kindness,
But I was a girl too.
And you were just like me, and I was just like you."
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
Shoot them both.
Commander Annabella wrote:
In the end, too, if we don't have any definitive opinion about what treatment makes sense, you follow the adage of "do no harm" and neither restrict the child from things generally deemed female or introduce hormone treatment until the child can make his/her own decision.
Flea, have you seen the documentary "Southern Comfort"? A (born woman) man struggles with both his transgendered identity and the fact that he is being killed by ovarian cancer.
Sad stuff.
Sad stuff.
What's bred in the bone will not out of the flesh.
Nah. First time I knew of such a thing was when I was 18, in a Psychology of Human Sexuality class. A biological male who identified as a lesbian female. A mechanic by trade, he lived in a perfectly normal-seeming partnership with a nail technician. You could still see the oil under his Lee press-on nails.
That's when I realized no one chooses this ****.
That's when I realized no one chooses this ****.
Flea, have you seen the documentary "Southern Comfort"? A (born woman) man struggles with both his transgendered identity and the fact that he is being killed by ovarian cancer.
Sounds like a great date movie.
Disclaimer:
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
This kind of question is likely to come up more often.
Many substances made from crude oil are now found to be hormonally active in human bodies. Crude oil contains benzine rings, and so do the oestrogens. Not all the crude oil molecules behave like oestrogens or other hormones in the human body, but very many of them do. Also, any molecule with an atomic weight of less than 420, that is fat-soluble, can penetrate human skin.
There is a MASSIVE rise in reproductive system cancers, menstrual and fertility problems and intersex births (where a baby is born with genitals that are neither clearly male nor female), since the 1950s. It now looks likely that the common culprit is petrochemicals. Plastics, gas/petrol, herbicides, pesticides, synthetic materials of all sorts in cheap make-ups, food additives and clothing.
There are some simple tests to determine if a class of petrochemicals are hormonally active or not, therefore a safe ingredient to use in consumer products, but at the moment these tests aren't done.
It's pretty clear that children who grow up always thinking that they were given the wrong body sex have many brain and hormonal chemical signatures of the opposite sex. I wouldn't be surprised if petrochemical pollution wouldn't be at least partially responsible for some of these cases. Given how fetuses develop, it would only take an unlucky exposure at exactly the wrong brief window of time, for a dose of the "wrong" hormones originating from outside the mother's body to set up a life-long "fault".
If you want more information, look up xenohormones, and xenoestrogens.
Many substances made from crude oil are now found to be hormonally active in human bodies. Crude oil contains benzine rings, and so do the oestrogens. Not all the crude oil molecules behave like oestrogens or other hormones in the human body, but very many of them do. Also, any molecule with an atomic weight of less than 420, that is fat-soluble, can penetrate human skin.
There is a MASSIVE rise in reproductive system cancers, menstrual and fertility problems and intersex births (where a baby is born with genitals that are neither clearly male nor female), since the 1950s. It now looks likely that the common culprit is petrochemicals. Plastics, gas/petrol, herbicides, pesticides, synthetic materials of all sorts in cheap make-ups, food additives and clothing.
There are some simple tests to determine if a class of petrochemicals are hormonally active or not, therefore a safe ingredient to use in consumer products, but at the moment these tests aren't done.
It's pretty clear that children who grow up always thinking that they were given the wrong body sex have many brain and hormonal chemical signatures of the opposite sex. I wouldn't be surprised if petrochemical pollution wouldn't be at least partially responsible for some of these cases. Given how fetuses develop, it would only take an unlucky exposure at exactly the wrong brief window of time, for a dose of the "wrong" hormones originating from outside the mother's body to set up a life-long "fault".
If you want more information, look up xenohormones, and xenoestrogens.
There is a MASSIVE rise in reproductive system cancers, menstrual and fertility problems and intersex births (where a baby is born with genitals that are neither clearly male nor female), since the 1950s.
No. In reporting of same, not even close to the same thing.
It now looks likely that the common culprit is petrochemicals.
Hahahahahahahaha.
No. Stop being a sucker, pretty please. Please? If you have kids get them immunized, and let them eat peanut butter and gluten and play with plastic toys.
Stop being terrified of life.
Disclaimer:
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
Smasharoo wrote:
There is a MASSIVE rise in reproductive system cancers, menstrual and fertility problems and intersex births (where a baby is born with genitals that are neither clearly male nor female), since the 1950s.
No. In reporting of same, not even close to the same thing.
It now looks likely that the common culprit is petrochemicals.
Hahahahahahahaha.
No. Stop being a sucker, pretty please. Please? If you have kids get them immunized, and let them eat peanut butter and gluten and play with plastic toys.
Stop being terrified of life.
I am a big fan of immunisation, peanut butter and gluten. I'm also a big fan of plastic, not least in I.V. drips. Once a plastic/petrochemical is determined to be hormonally inert, it can be used in a zillion places with serene confidence forevermore. I'm not going to argue with you about being a sucker on this. This issue of xenohormones has started rolling with more and more speed over the last decade...in exactly the same way that the "smoking causes lung cancer" issue, or the "Asbestos causes mesothelioma" issue slowly started rolling.
I first heard about this a long time ago. I heard almost nothing more, and I persued the issue myself, digging up two books written by scientific researders on it. Since then, with increasing frequency the issue has come up in science documentaries and current affairs programs. Serious programs on serious radio and television stations and particular programs with a long history of addressing serious science. This is not something I have picked up via the "alternate medicine" media, "lifestyle" shows, or um... the "crystal-sucking" section in the bookshelves. You know, the section with the theosophical society in it, and aliens and auras and things.
Edited, May 15th 2008 1:21pm by Aripyanfar
Smasharoo wrote:
If you have kids get them immunized, and let them eat peanut butter and gluten and play with plastic toys.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
In a tangent to this discussion, Dateline did a story on two families where one was a green as green can be. No hormones, all organic, the works. The other family was your typical American slobs. They eat meat, use all the stuff that supposed to be bad for you, etc etc.
Dateline took everyone's blood, did a comprehensive panel looking for all the chemicals and substances that are thought to have cancer connections, and guess who had fewer bad jujus in them?
That's right, the American slob family. It just goes to show you that you just need to live your life and quit worrying about radon, pesticides, EMF, and red M&Ms. If you were to live to 100 by not smoking or dring a fifth of whiskey every day, that UPS truck delivering packages to the house across the street would probably kill you when you least expect it.
Relaaaaaaax. Nobody gets out of this life alive anyway.
Totem
Dateline took everyone's blood, did a comprehensive panel looking for all the chemicals and substances that are thought to have cancer connections, and guess who had fewer bad jujus in them?
That's right, the American slob family. It just goes to show you that you just need to live your life and quit worrying about radon, pesticides, EMF, and red M&Ms. If you were to live to 100 by not smoking or dring a fifth of whiskey every day, that UPS truck delivering packages to the house across the street would probably kill you when you least expect it.
Relaaaaaaax. Nobody gets out of this life alive anyway.
Totem
This issue of xenohormones has started rolling with more and more speed over the last decade...in exactly the same way that the "smoking causes lung cancer" issue, or the "Asbestos causes mesothelioma" issue slowly started rolling.
Cite a peer reviewed study. Or don't, whatever, but if you've done this much research there must be dozens of them showing a causal link, right? Not just a couple of ******** trying to sell books to suckers. Correct?
Disclaimer:
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
Smasharoo wrote:
This issue of xenohormones has started rolling with more and more speed over the last decade...in exactly the same way that the "smoking causes lung cancer" issue, or the "Asbestos causes mesothelioma" issue slowly started rolling.
Cite a peer reviewed study. Or don't, whatever, but if you've done this much research there must be dozens of them showing a causal link, right? Not just a couple of @#%^s trying to sell books to suckers. Correct?
Quote:
Does 'the dose make the poison?'
Extensive results challenge a core assumption in toxicology
by Pete Myers, Ph.D. and Wendy Hessler
This paper is specifically concerned with environmental doses of endocrine disruptors that humans are exposed to, and argues that the old "safe limits" are set way too high.
Issue: Non-monotonic Dose-Response, References:
Andrade, AJM, SW Grande, CE Talsness, K Grote and I Chahoud. 2006. A dose–response study following in utero and lactational exposure to di-(2-ethylhexyl)-phthalate (DEHP): Non-monotonic dose–response and low dose effects on rat brain aromatase activity. Toxicology 227: 185-192.
Narita, S, RM Goldblum, CS Watson, EG Brooks, DM Estes, EM Curran and T Midoro-Horiuti. 2007. Environmental Estrogens Induce Mast Cell Degranulation and Enhance IgE-mediated Release of Allergic Mediators. Environmental Health Perspectives 115:48–52
Newbold, RR, E Padilla-Banks, RJ Snyder and WN Jefferson. 2005. Developmental Exposure to Estrogenic Compounds and Obesity. Birth Defects Research (Part A) 73:478–480.
Ralph, JL, M-C Orgebin-Crist, J-J Lareyre and CC Nelson. 2003. Disruption of androgen regulation in the prostate by the environmental contaminant hexachlorobenzene. Environmental Health Perspectives 111:461-466
Takano, H, R Yanagisawa, K-I Inoue, T Ichinose, K Sadakano, and T Yoshikawa. 2006. Di-(2-ehylhexyl) Phthalate Enhances Atopic Dermatitis-Like Skin Lesions in Mice. Environmental Health Perspectives 114: 1266-1269.
Welshons, WV, KA Thayer, BM Judy, JA Taylor, EM Curran and FS vom Saal. 2003. Large effects from small exposures. I. Mechanisms for endocrine disrupting chemicals with estrogenic activity. Environmental Health Perspectives 111:994-1006.
Wetherill, YB, CE Petre, KR Monk, A Puga, and KE Knudsen. 2002. The Xenoestrogen Bisphenol A Induces Inappropriate Androgen Receptor Activation and Mitogenesis in Prostatic Adenocarcinoma Cells. Molecular Cancer Therapeutics 1: 515–524.
Wozniak, AL, NN Bulayeva and CS Watson. 2005. Xenoestrogens at Picomolar to Nanomolar Concentrations Trigger Membrane Estrogen Receptor-alpha-Mediated Ca++ Fluxes and Prolactin Release in GH3/B6 Pituitary Tumor Cells. Environmental Health Perspectives 113:431-439.
Quote:
Skakkebæk, NE, E Rajpert-De Meyts and KM Main. 2001. Testicular dysgenesis syndrome: an increasingly common developmental disorder with environmental aspects. Human Reproduction 16:972-978.
In this paper Skakkebæk et al. summarize emerging evidence that a collection of adverse conditions in male reproductive health have their basis in a common origin, specific errors during the development of fetal testes.
They propose that this collection of disorders should be recognized as a syndrome, testicular dysgenesis syndrome (TDS), and that it is likely to be caused by environmental factors in many cases, and by rare genetic disorders in others. Their proposal is based on well-established understanding of the way in which the male reproductive tract develops, particularly the way that variation in fetal hormonal levels can lead to disease and dysfunction.
The diagram below identifies the two sources of TDS, environmental factors and genetic defects, and then shows their consequences. One pathway of impact, via disruption in Sertoli Cell function, leads to reduced ***** quality and testicular cancer. The other, through impacts on Leydig Cell function, causes hypospadias and cryptorchidism. The common origin, TDS, thus leads to a cluster of related health effects.
The important bit in the diagram is where it's talking about Environmental Factors, ENDOCRINE DISRUPTORS, as this is another common phrase for xenohormones
Quote:
Democrats want chemical in plastic investigated
Federal agencies are accused of ignoring the dangers of bisphenol A, which some experts think may harm the development of children's brains.
By James Hohmann, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
May 15, 2008
WASHINGTON -- Congress on Wednesday waded into an escalating scientific dispute over a controversial ingredient in plastic products that some think may harm the development of children's brains and interfere with human reproduction.
Members of a Senate consumer affairs subcommittee faulted federal agencies for reacting too slowly to concerns that children are exposed to bisphenol A, or BPA, through leaching from such items as water bottles, baby bottles and the linings of food and baby formula cans.
Senate Democrats demanded more independent research into the possible hazards of the estrogen-like compound and better labeling of products that include it.
Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) pushed for legislation he has introduced to prohibit BPA in all products designed for and intended to be used by children age 7 and younger. The compound is used in the manufacture of polycarbonate, a rigid plastic, and epoxy resins.
...
The Senate hearing followed efforts by the European Union, Canada and some companies to phase out the use of potentially dangerous chemicals in plastics.
Full Story here; it's not all black and white, or at least, the issue is highly controversial still, being argued heavily by the plastics industry, and others who don't want one health concern displacing other health concerns.
Edited, May 15th 2008 3:24pm by Aripyanfar
Edited, May 15th 2008 3:35pm by Aripyanfar
Edited, May 15th 2008 3:38pm by Aripyanfar
Smasharoo wrote:
This issue of xenohormones has started rolling with more and more speed over the last decade...in exactly the same way that the "smoking causes lung cancer" issue, or the "Asbestos causes mesothelioma" issue slowly started rolling.
Cite a peer reviewed study. Or don't, whatever, but if you've done this much research there must be dozens of them showing a causal link, right? Not just a couple of @#%^s trying to sell books to suckers. Correct?
There's enough proof for the EU to have banned the use of pthalates in kids toys over a decade ago (well, restricted, then banned--but they are not even regulated here), and for Canada to have banned bisphenol-A in baby bottles just in the last couple months.
Unless the EU and Canadian governments are just trying to sell books, hmm?
Edited, May 15th 2008 12:30pm by Ambrya
I think you missed the part showing a link to causality.
Disclaimer:
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
Recent Visitors: 268
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (268)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- WWYD?
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC