Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Environmental Chemicals Are Feminizing Boys

kdawson posted more than 4 years ago | from the bending-toward-distaff dept.

Biotech 614

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."

cancel ×

614 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Solution (5, Funny)

IamTheRealMike (537420) | more than 4 years ago | (#30105148)

All Danish mothers should be required by law to watch 2 hours of Chuck Norris per day during pregnancy.

Rednecks? (-1, Flamebait)

sjbe (173966) | more than 4 years ago | (#30105206)

All Danish mothers should be required by law to watch 2 hours of Chuck Norris per day during pregnancy.

Is there a shortage of rednecks in Denmark? *cough*Texas Ranger [wikipedia.org] *cough*

Re:Rednecks? (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30105432)

In short, yes.

Denmark has _no_ rednecks/chavs/illiterate underclass. Quite frankly it's amazing, and is mostly a result of huge investment in education after the second world war.

Re:Rednecks? (5, Insightful)

QuoteMstr (55051) | more than 4 years ago | (#30105478)

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.

Re:Rednecks? (0, Troll)

wellingj (1030460) | more than 4 years ago | (#30105548)

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

Re:Rednecks? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30105594)

Denmark would suggest that's not relevant.

Re:Rednecks? (1)

alexhard (778254) | more than 4 years ago | (#30105572)

Their children have the same genetic gifts as anyone else

Because stupid people don't pass on their genes?

anti-intellectualism (1)

arielCo (995647) | more than 4 years ago | (#30105582)

Damn, where are my mod points when I really have a use for them?

Re:Solution (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30105286)

Chuck Norris is a right wing fanatic. He probably paid for this.

Re:Solution (4, Funny)

Idiomatick (976696) | more than 4 years ago | (#30105380)

Less men are bothering being manly since they know Chuck Norris will always be there to take their women anyways.

British children (-1, Flamebait)

anss123 (985305) | more than 4 years ago | (#30105154)

"British children have higher levels of gender-bending chemicals in their blood"

HAHA

Re:British children (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30105180)

More cute gender-bending emo boys is a good thing.

Re:British children (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30105238)

Hi. Please kill yourself. You too, whoever modded this up.

Re:British children (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30105376)

Wow, I think you are a little too accepting of other peoples' opinion. Stop taking sensitivity classes before you turn into a ball of all-accepting happiness please.

Re:British children (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30105532)

What opinion? The first AC was clearly making a statement of fact. A blatantly false statement of fact. More emo bullshit is never needed by anyone anywhere.

Re:British children (1)

thetoadwarrior (1268702) | more than 4 years ago | (#30105354)

Is that Elton John?

(s)he (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30105156)

"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."

And how are these chemicals affecting animal population ratios?

Re:(s)he (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30105522)

You mean animals that people dress up in waterproof clothes and rubber boots?

re: 106 boys for every 100 girls (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30105546)

Normally 106 boys are born for every 100 girls. ... In Britain, the discrepancy amounts to thousands of babies a year.

Would it have killed them to say what the observed rate is? Here's my analysis.

Google says:
United Kingdom — Birth Rate: 10.65 births/1,000 population (2008 est.)
Population, United Kingdom 61,399,118 - 2008

My calculator tells me that's 10.65 * 61,399,118 / 1000 = 653900.6067.

With 106 M:100 F ratio, we expect 106/206 * 653900 = 336473 males/year.

336473 / 653900 = 51.46% expected (106:100)
(336473 - 2000) / 653900 = 51.15% observed (about 104.7:100)

If we assume they're being honest when using the word thousands, then the observed rate in Britain is less than 104.7 boys for every 100 girls.

[Disclaimer: I'm not the same AC as the parent.]

It's a disease (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30105162)

I told you all along.

Not Dolls!! (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30105170)

For the last time, they aren't dolls, they're action figures!!

It's the chemicals!? Bollox to that! (2, Insightful)

syousef (465911) | more than 4 years ago | (#30105178)

Yeah it has nothing to do with forcing boys to engage in more timid play, impressing upon them that when they grow older they'll be expected to do their share of the child rearing, presenting them with effeminate roll models, balking at allowing them to take risks or play "politically incorrect" games, keeping them away from violence and agression more than any previous generation, or putting them in female clothing for a giggle. Nothing to do with that at all. It's the chemicals!

GIMME A BREAK.

Re:It's the chemicals!? Bollox to that! (1)

StackedCrooked (1204878) | more than 4 years ago | (#30105204)

Sources?

Re:It's the chemicals!? Bollox to that! (1, Flamebait)

FlyingSquidStudios (1031284) | more than 4 years ago | (#30105222)

they'll be expected to do their share of the child rearing

What? The nerve! Everyone knows fathers are supposed to ignore their children at all times, even if they're on fire.

Re:It's the chemicals!? Bollox to that! (1)

peragrin (659227) | more than 4 years ago | (#30105398)

no a father can put out a child on fire, by picking up the child carrying them to the nearest water source and dropping them in. After all fatehrs are immune to fire, it is only withes that aren't.

Re:It's the chemicals!? Bollox to that! (1)

tsstahl (812393) | more than 4 years ago | (#30105402)

What? The nerve! Everyone knows fathers are supposed to ignore their children at all times, even if they're on fire.

I believe that exception actually passed at the last decennial International Man Convention. Just make sure physical contact is kept to the barest minimum.

Re:It's the chemicals!? Bollox to that! (1)

Quiet_Desperation (858215) | more than 4 years ago | (#30105524)

Well, you *could* light your cigar with the burning kid.

Re:It's the chemicals!? Bollox to that! (5, Funny)

Narpak (961733) | more than 4 years ago | (#30105568)

What? The nerve! Everyone knows fathers are supposed to ignore their children at all times, even if they're on fire.

When my siblings and I were growing up our father would deliberately put us on fire to "toughen us up a bit".

Re:It's the chemicals!? Bollox to that! (5, Informative)

jcupitt65 (68879) | more than 4 years ago | (#30105236)

Social factors could perhaps have a role, but there's no evidence for it, as far as I know.

There is however a lot of evidence that environmental oestrogens have an effect on development, and much of this evidence is nicely summarised in the linked article.

Re:It's the chemicals!? Bollox to that! (1)

pwizard2 (920421) | more than 4 years ago | (#30105338)

That could very well be true. Several years ago I heard stories about how estrogen-like chemicals could theoretically leach out of plastic bottled water containers under certain conditions. I would believe this because I've left bottles of water in the sun on various occasions and the water has had a slightly strange taste afterward. Who knows what was in there?

Personally, I wish they would start using glass containers again for drinks. There's nothing to hurt you there. (plus we wouldn't need to use petroleum for that since silica is one of the most abundant minerals on the planet)

Re:It's the chemicals!? Bollox to that! (2, Insightful)

QuoteMstr (55051) | more than 4 years ago | (#30105332)

I usually try to be thoughtful in my posts, but after the above, all I can muster is:

What the fuck is wrong with you?

Re:It's the chemicals!? Bollox to that! (2, Funny)

TheLink (130905) | more than 4 years ago | (#30105550)

> What the fuck is wrong with you?

Too much exposure to harmful environmental chemicals?

Re:It's the chemicals!? Bollox to that! (1)

emilper (826945) | more than 4 years ago | (#30105592)

He has, sort of, a point: in the fine article there is not a word about "masculinising" or "neutralising" substances, and there is not a word about controls for social causes or food habits; my take it is another scare aiming to blackmail governments to fund otherwise legitimate research by playing on the fear of being transformed into "wusses" by the "big evil multinationals" ... fear that is perfectly legitimate, but has less to do with "chemicals" and more with office bureaucracy, procedures and discipline.

Re:It's the chemicals!? Bollox to that! (1, Interesting)

Idiomatick (976696) | more than 4 years ago | (#30105344)

Manly role models offend me far more.

I can aspire to have anger issues? Be hero and join the military where I can shoot people? Be a local hero and hit and or throw and or catch a ball? Maybe something involving beating up and or shooting badguys.

The other option for males on TV are slobs or rude pigs. Almost all stupid.

Also, child rearing isn't a particularly female position beyond infancy. Girls simply got stuck with it because they gave birth so its their responsibility. And the idea that violence and aggression is a manly thing. Or that it is something we should hope to aspire to is complete BS.

When you hear the word 'manly' what are your first thoughts, I'd like to know what /.'s reaction to the word is?

Re:It's the chemicals!? Bollox to that! (4, Funny)

emilper (826945) | more than 4 years ago | (#30105612)

When you hear the word 'manly' what are your first thoughts, I'd like to know what /.'s reaction to the word is?

Just a sec, to ask me wife ...

The solution is obvious. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30105184)

I'll come to your house and rub my dick on your kid's face; he'll be fucking cheerleaders in no time. And if you call right now, I'll do two kids for the price of one.

Denmark? (2, Informative)

anomnomnomymous (1321267) | more than 4 years ago | (#30105188)

I assume they mean the Netherlands, since the Rotterdam Erasmus University is in the Netherlands.

Re:Denmark? (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30105358)

One article is from Denmark, the other article is from the Netherlands.

So "Peak Oil" (-1, Flamebait)

Cornwallis (1188489) | more than 4 years ago | (#30105192)

and our "lessening" use of petroleum products look like a way to drive down the numbers of fags since those chemicals won't be as available, hence, they won't be affecting little kids. Yeah!

Dolls and tea sets? (4, Insightful)

JimboFBX (1097277) | more than 4 years ago | (#30105210)

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...?

Re:Dolls and tea sets? (4, Informative)

StackedCrooked (1204878) | more than 4 years ago | (#30105218)

Girls prefer to play with dolls, and boys prefer to play with toy cars, guns etc.. This is genetic, not cultural.

Re:Dolls and tea sets? (4, Insightful)

FlyingSquidStudios (1031284) | more than 4 years ago | (#30105232)

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

Re:Dolls and tea sets? (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30105258)

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

No, toys evolved to fit gender preferences.

The toy preference is also observed in apes: female chimps prefer dolls, male chimps prefer cars.

Re:Dolls and tea sets? (0)

FlyingSquidStudios (1031284) | more than 4 years ago | (#30105296)

[Citation needed]

Re:Dolls and tea sets? (5, Insightful)

StackedCrooked (1204878) | more than 4 years ago | (#30105348)

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/ [nih.gov]

Mod parent up (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30105472)

Provides requested citation

Re:Dolls and tea sets? (1)

thetoadwarrior (1268702) | more than 4 years ago | (#30105418)

It is laughable to say that girls don't tend to prefer toys that suit their gender. Girls always like babies and quite rightly, they're the ones that have to give birth to them when they grow up.

I'm not sure if this is what he was referencing but yes there has been a study done on animal youth and toys.

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/200804/why-do-boys-and-girls-prefer-different-toys [psychologytoday.com]

Re:Dolls and tea sets? (1, Insightful)

DJRumpy (1345787) | more than 4 years ago | (#30105388)

Then why do boys play with GI Joe and Army Man toys? I agree. There is no study that I'm aware of that says that estrogen makes you want to pick up a doll (action figure?). Those are gender roles, taught by parenting. If you stick a child in a room with a bunch of girl and boy toys, without showing them which they should be playing with, they would play with all of them. We teach children what toys to play with because we as parents buy them. We encourage boys to be boys and girls to be girls.

This article makes far reaching 'guesses' without any hard science to back it up.

The leap from this to the change in male to female ratio was a total guess. This reads more like a sensational news story than any sort of scientific paper.

Re:Dolls and tea sets? (4, Informative)

Jeremi (14640) | more than 4 years ago | (#30105442)

Those are gender roles, taught by parenting. If you stick a child in a room with a bunch of girl and boy toys, without showing them which they should be playing with, they would play with all of them.

That's the popular ideal, but it's simply not true. Social experiments and have shown that even in isolated communities, even if every attempt is made to treat boys and girls the same (so as not to condition them one way or the other), the boys will prefer playing with traditionally-male toys, and the girls will prefer playing with traditionally-female toys.

Nature, it seems, is not always politically correct.

Re:Dolls and tea sets? (2, Funny)

cenc (1310167) | more than 4 years ago | (#30105504)

Yea, all the girls my neighborhood convinced me that playing house was way cooler than playing with GI Joe.

Re:Dolls and tea sets? (1)

pavon (30274) | more than 4 years ago | (#30105428)

To add to the AC, the games that children play exhibit behavior that mimic the normal cultural roles of males and females (sometimes exaggeratedly). Boy games tend to be more active and violent, girl's are more social. This segmentation between hunters/homemakers has existed long enough to be consistent with the idea of evolved biological differences between males and females being at least a major contributing factor.

And before the PC folks chime in, yes these are generalizations and as such do not apply to individuals, but are seen in a statistical sense.

Re:Dolls and tea sets? (1)

Davemania (580154) | more than 4 years ago | (#30105492)

What does the existance of toys have to do with anything ? Children behavior isn't dictated by toy brand name. If you were to argue whether a toy evokes certain evolutionary trait of a child, that may make more sense.

Stop being dim with yer questions. (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30105580)

He is not suggesting that boys evolved to play with guns. He is suggesting that boys evolved with a disposition to pursue - amongst other things - adventurous endeavours, seek out excitement and to dominate others (call it leadership if you like). Messing around with guns is part of that. Playing with dollies is not.

It is a sweeping generalisation. Obviously some people do not fit the stereotype, and also obviously, chemicals can change the balance.

There was a time when if a country was attacked, that country would invade the attackers country, kill all opposition, and subjugate the population to ensure they could never attack again. Those days have gone. With the chemical changes affecting the population of the west, what they do instead, is sort of invade, but also trying not to hurt anybody. When the country being invade complains, the west gets sad and questions its purpose in life. They talk themselves out of the invasion before it has really begun and eventually withdraw their troops for fear that some of them might get hurt... ready for the whole process to start over again.

Re:Dolls and tea sets? (5, Funny)

p0rnographer (1051212) | more than 4 years ago | (#30105226)

For the last time, they aren't dolls, they're action figures!!

Re:Dolls and tea sets? (4, Funny)

sxrysafis (1458169) | more than 4 years ago | (#30105256)

No, sir! I didn't see you playing with your dolls again, sir!!!

Re:Dolls and tea sets? (1)

noname444 (1182107) | more than 4 years ago | (#30105246)

I'd mod you up, but I'm fresh out of mod points

It could be both. (2, Insightful)

pavon (30274) | more than 4 years ago | (#30105350)

One of the main reasons that we participate in cultural activities is to fit in with the group. If chemical-induced hormones made boys more likely to associate/relate with girls then they would be more likely to participate in girl activities - however culture defines them.

That said, it does seem like a bit of a leap to me - too many factors to control for to get meaningful results. I'd be more convinced by separate studies that showed that exposure to certain chemicals increased certain hormone levels, and people with those hormone levels were more likely to have feminine behavior than to jump straight between the two like the summary implies.

Re:It could be both. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30105382)

It is probably a rather complicated mess to sort out.

However, girls would be expected to play with dolls to prepare for their role and boys with dynamic toys, to prepare for their roles in the hunter-gatherer society that we just recently emerged from, a few moments ago in evolutionary terms.

Re:Dolls and tea sets? (1)

ShooterNeo (555040) | more than 4 years ago | (#30105378)

It's a neat trick, isn't it? Yes, it is biology : somehow the neural net on a male 'prefers' the action figures while the neural net on a female 'prefers' the doll set. There's no known way to override this : it has been tried.

Mother nature is a pretty brilliant hardware designer, most of the time.

Re:Dolls and tea sets? (2, Insightful)

Jeremi (14640) | more than 4 years ago | (#30105414)

There's no known way to override this : it has been tried.

As the article points out, there is a way... exposure to PCBs and dioxins.

Re:Dolls and tea sets? (1)

ShooterNeo (555040) | more than 4 years ago | (#30105494)

Err I meant through cultural exposure. With chemicals, you're changing how the brain operates and so you can adjust it's preferences. (so much for 'free will', eh)

However, they've tried to give boys the dolls and tea sets and encourage them to play with them, and vice versa and it hasn't worked. Hence, it probably isn't cultural.

Re:Dolls and tea sets? (1)

ComputerGeek01 (1182793) | more than 4 years ago | (#30105540)

They're Not Dolls! They're Action Figures! And we were playing Boston Tea Party not that Tea Party.

Good news for feminism (1)

whatajoke (1625715) | more than 4 years ago | (#30105214)

Given that this is good news for feminism, I don't see anything being done to correct this.
And oh yeah, I submitted the same story [slashdot.org] few week back.

Re:Good news for feminism (1)

MrMr (219533) | more than 4 years ago | (#30105328)

Ah, but this a different story; because this one is 327 pages instead of 326.
If only somebody would have put a reference to the original paper on line.

Re:Good news for feminism (1)

StackedCrooked (1204878) | more than 4 years ago | (#30105426)

Why is this good news for feminism? It could negatively be interpreted as: "poisonous chemicals degrade boys into girls" implying that feminine is somehow less than masculine.

Good news for Slashdot crowd (3, Funny)

simoncpu was here (1601629) | more than 4 years ago | (#30105224)

Proportion of females is rising. This is good news.
Research shows that men who have bad hygiene are more masculine than their clean-shaven brethren. Again, fellow Slashdotters, this is good news.

Re:Good news for Slashdot crowd (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30105264)

No. It seems that only the proportion of "effeminate" males is rising. So that's not really a boon to the stereotypical geek chained to his computer....well, er....unless the prospect of a reach around from your PHB floats your boat...in that case, your odds are improving.

Re:Good news for Slashdot crowd (3, Interesting)

SigILL (6475) | more than 4 years ago | (#30105294)

unless the prospect of a reach around from your PHB floats your boat

Effeminacy has nothing to do with sexual orientation. If anything, a majority of homosexual men are _more_ masculine than heterosexual men.

Re:Good news for Slashdot crowd (1)

Thiez (1281866) | more than 4 years ago | (#30105436)

How so?

So that explains (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30105242)

commander taco

326 page report - where? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30105244)

Chem Trust's website has some PDF files, but none of them are 326 pages, as mentioned in the Telegraph article. http://www.chemtrust.org.uk/Press_and_Media.php [chemtrust.org.uk]

Transsexualism (5, Informative)

BlueParrot (965239) | more than 4 years ago | (#30105274)

One theory about why transsexualism occurs has been that it is a hormone induced neurological change that occurs early in development. While science is far from concluded on weather this is the case, I can from personal experience state that it is not a fun place to be. If there's even a small chance that environmental toxins is contributing to its prevalence then this is a very serious matter and definitely justifies a careful approach on restricting the use of chemicals that can influence gender development.

To give a slight idea of how strong an effect these things can have on a persons general wellbeing, a Dutch study found 20% of female to male transsexuals had attempted suicide prior to initiating hormone treatment. In comparison the figures following treatment with androgens were just a few percent. Now try to imagine what the effects might be when you expose an entire population to a diffuse cocktail of chemicals that interfere with gender development and you should start feeling a bit uncomfortable about the situation...

Blame Bush for continued lax regulation (5, Informative)

tomhudson (43916) | more than 4 years ago | (#30105306)

FTFA:

Yet gender-benders are largely exempt from new EU regulations controlling hazardous chemicals. Britain, then under Tony Blair's premiership, was largely responsible for this - restricting their inclusion in the first draft of the legislation, and then causing even what was included to be watered down.Confidential documents show that it did so after pressure from George W Bush's administration, which protested that US exports "could be impacted".

I get it!! (3, Funny)

ectotherm (842918) | more than 4 years ago | (#30105292)

We now have an explanation for the "Metrosexual" trend...

Gender ratios are not a problem (1)

popo (107611) | more than 4 years ago | (#30105298)

While it's easy to laugh at the "positive" aspects of being one of very few men -- it should be noted on a purely biological level that far fewer than 50% (or even 10%) men are needed to carry on the species.

Re:Gender ratios are not a problem (1)

Phrogman (80473) | more than 4 years ago | (#30105394)

And that remaining 10% are going to have a lot of fun before the required exertion kills them :P

Re:Gender ratios are not a problem (1)

TeknoHog (164938) | more than 4 years ago | (#30105534)

And that remaining 10% are going to have a lot of fun before the required exertion kills them :P

In other words: Death by Snu-Snu!

Re:Gender ratios are not a problem (1)

rdnetto (955205) | more than 4 years ago | (#30105420)

Necessary, yes. Likely to, no. There are too many cultural and social factors involved. Even if we were to survive, humanity would undergo substantial change in the progress.

Re:Gender ratios are not a problem (1)

StackedCrooked (1204878) | more than 4 years ago | (#30105438)

I would be really great to be one of THOSE very few men!

Re:Gender ratios are not a problem (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30105528)

I believe the ratio of men as a percentage of total world population is actually increasing, as female fetuses are aborted or abandoned at much higher rates in many parts of the world. The numbers cited here simply refer to the rate of conception.

Re:Gender ratios are not a problem (1)

WindBourne (631190) | more than 4 years ago | (#30105614)

Actually, it is only in Asia (mostly China and India) that you see that behavior. My understanding is that it is changing in India. With the massive offset that they have in China, it is possible that the communist party will push changes against this and regulate that aspect of their lives.

I'm fine (1)

Hangingcurve (1132587) | more than 4 years ago | (#30105310)

I skimmed over the article really fast and the only thing I was thinking about was lesbians.

I'm going to be just fine I think.

Re:I'm fine (1)

operator_error (1363139) | more than 4 years ago | (#30105468)

Well yeah, sure. You'll be fine, but what about your descendants? Oh wait... BESIDES, this being slashdot and all.

Batman? (1)

saxoholic (992773) | more than 4 years ago | (#30105312)

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

This plot sounds awfully familiar. Are they taking their research from Tim Burton's "Batman" movie?

Is it such a bad thing? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30105366)

Would a slight emasculation be such a bad thing? When you think of the masculine elements of society, these come to mind:

  • hunting
  • conquest
  • self-reliance
  • power
  • dominance
  • strength
  • competition
  • bluster

Whereas these are more associated with feminine elements, these come to mind:

  • subtlety
  • compassion
  • trade
  • art
  • negotiation
  • nature
  • agriculture
  • thoughtfulness

IMHO, the feminine model is a far better fit for 21st century culture and technology.

Re:Is it such a bad thing? (3, Interesting)

Starayo (989319) | more than 4 years ago | (#30105496)

You forgot the two-faced backstabbing, the bald-faced lies, etc. Women are evil to each other in their younger years.

Not being any sort of expert on human behaviour, I can only hazard a guess that this behaviour stems from the instinct that other women are potential opponents when they seek their ideal mate.

Regardless of that I personally support a change of behaviour to predominantly "feminine".

Re:Is it such a bad thing? (0, Troll)

QuoteMstr (55051) | more than 4 years ago | (#30105508)

There is no reason for this post to be moderated to "-1 Troll". It's a perfectly reasonable thought.

Re:Is it such a bad thing? (5, Interesting)

Virak (897071) | more than 4 years ago | (#30105608)

It's a perfectly ridiculous thought. Many of the listed 'masculine' qualities aren't masculine, and almost all of the 'feminine' qualities aren't feminine either. And this idea some people (seemingly including the OP) have that the world would be all sunshine and happiness and everyone would shit rainbows if we put women in charge is just delusional.

Re:Is it such a bad thing? (3, Insightful)

Thiez (1281866) | more than 4 years ago | (#30105566)

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.

How Ironic for Conservative Republicans (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30105374)

they want to completely deregulate all businesses, shut down the EPA, and get rid of every environmental law ever created. they make fun of green peace and anyone who doesn't eat mercury for breakfast is a 'goddamn treehugging long hair libtard'.

but in truth, it is Conservative, Christian Republicans who are responsible for the proliferation of transvestite and transexual porn sites, that keep mucking up my google image searches. The entire academic and social movement to legitimize the transgendered and even to create multiple genders 'in between' male and female owes it's rising popularity to the Republican War on Hippies.

Isn't it Ironic, don't you think?

Puberty (1)

BlackSheep713 (1678926) | more than 4 years ago | (#30105440)

Wait...2 year olds don't have sperm, at least that is what I remember from health class. If it drives down their sperm count, does that mean their testicle will implode?

Kids Abosrb More "butylparaben" (1)

aplusjimages (939458) | more than 4 years ago | (#30105444)

"I love my dead gay son"

A bonus for men (2, Insightful)

thetoadwarrior (1268702) | more than 4 years ago | (#30105446)

More women mean they'll have to lower their standards and accept any old shit we care to do thanks to the laws of supply and demand. I foresee a generation coming up where women will be back in the kitchen where they belong. :P

Old news is so exciting (-1, Flamebait)

Gothmolly (148874) | more than 4 years ago | (#30105462)

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, and....

Talk about a slow news day. What's next, an article about how Oracle is buying Sun ?

Dolls, FUCK that (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30105498)

You now have boys wearing MAKE-UP, etc.

Mixed up: Biological Gender vs. Feminization (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30105510)

This article does not make sense.

Biological gender (dictated by the presence of an Y vs. X chromosome) is irrevocably determined at the moment a spermium merges with an egg, excluding very rare cases of extra chromosomes etc. External pollution by endocrine disruptor chemicals plays no role in this.

Exhibition of female traits in biological males is a completely different story, and there is increasing evidence that this may be linked to certain classes of chemicals.

However, I am not aware of any studies which link these chemicals to decreased viability of Y-sperm, which could be a reason for the decline of male births. The number of biological males feminized to a degree that they pass and spend their lifes as females, and is however far too low to account for this change.

Who cares? This is a good thing.. (0)

Bentov (993323) | more than 4 years ago | (#30105558)

With all the girly men out there, that just leaves more women for the real men out there.. *Salutes the morning wood* I'm glad to be an american. Now all eurobabes line up for you 100% USDA Beef!

Evidence first found in Hawaii (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30105560)

Way back on August 4, 1961.

I'd like to give a round of applause to science! (1)

tjstork (137384) | more than 4 years ago | (#30105606)

Guess all we bible thumping luddites in Amish country can still get it up, thank you very much.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>