Don't be so quick to condemn "unnatural, synthetic" chemicals. Some of the biggest troublemakers are plant estrogen that is sprayed on crops to increase plant yields. This has been known, studied and re-studied since the 1960s. Here's the science:
About halfway through gestation, a male fetus emits a small amount of testosterone that travels from its testes to its brain. This tells it that it is a "male" brain. If it does not get that bit of hormone, the brain remains "female", by default. Importantly, while in animals this may determine mating behavior, it DOES NOT DO SO IN HUMANS. So please set aside any ideas about homosexuality, which is much more complicated than this.
If during early pregnancy, the mother either uptakes a chemical that blocks this transfer, interferes with this transfer, significantly increases the amount of estrogen in her body (usually from eating Tofu), or increases the tiny amount of natural testosterone in her body (from other chemicals), it interferes with the process.
While again, this will not determine sexual attraction, it will play some considerable part in the secondary sexual characteristics of the offspring. Either androgyny, more feminine males, or more masculine females.
When this was first discovered in the 1960s, they evaluated the gamut of variations, even putting testosterone in just half the brain, but not the other half, which resulted in both male and female mating behavior, the animal, but not human, version of bisexuality.
To conclude, once again, humans are a lot more complicated. But this is a serious problem.
No offense, but I'm inclined to be skeptical about a comment on a social news site by some random person who is (ostensibly) reposting a comment from another social news site by another random person that purports to be explaining research of a complicated biological process, all without citing any references or linking to any sources.
"Don't be so quick to condemn 'unnatural, synthetic' chemicals."
Completely wrong. Phthalates and bpa have already been proven harmful. Certainly there are other chemicals that mimick estrogens as well, but saying we shouldn't condemn bpa and phthalates is ridiculous.
His point is that the problem with Phthalates and bpa is not that they are "unnatural and synthetic" but rather that they are bad for you. They'd be just as bad if they were natural.
Unfortunately my friend took down her blog with links to all the studies, so I don't have my original sources. But if you google phthalates estrogenic there are a bunch of studies confirming the premise.
Also, it's been proven to bioaccumulate in humans, which, given that it hasn't been proven safe, should be considered a harm in and of itself.
You just keep chowing down on your steak burgers and corn derivatives mate and we'll measure the differential in results in about 20 years OK? Tofu seems to work fine for the Japanese.
It has been argued that we are actually getting more soy than the Japanese, now, due to soy additives in all kinds of processed foods that aren't very tofu like at all. It has also been suggested that fermented soy (like Japanese miso) is different in its effects.
I know, I know, no citations, but at least wanted to put forth the arguments I've heard as to why the soy the average American is getting is worse and in greater quantities than the average Japanese.
So now you have moved your position from tofu to soy in general and you still don't even present the slightest hint of evidence. You simply say "you've heard arguments". I'm guessing you weren't so concerned over trifles like evidence when you were hearing these arguments. Very insightfull.
Uh, I'm not the one who made the original point about tofu. You should be more careful about paying attention to who made what arguments when replying.
I'm not sure what utility you see in pointing out that I did not present any evidence when I plainly said myself that I am not presenting any evidence.
OK fair enough. I did think you were the same person. However like the first post your post does tend to perpetuate a meme that exists in the absence of evidence or common sense. Without any evidence it falls into the same category as 'Obama is an Ayrab' and for further propagating it you deserve criticism.
Don't be so quick to condemn "unnatural, synthetic" chemicals. Some of the biggest troublemakers are plant estrogen that is sprayed on crops to increase plant yields. This has been known, studied and re-studied since the 1960s. Here's the science:
About halfway through gestation, a male fetus emits a small amount of testosterone that travels from its testes to its brain. This tells it that it is a "male" brain. If it does not get that bit of hormone, the brain remains "female", by default. Importantly, while in animals this may determine mating behavior, it DOES NOT DO SO IN HUMANS. So please set aside any ideas about homosexuality, which is much more complicated than this.
If during early pregnancy, the mother either uptakes a chemical that blocks this transfer, interferes with this transfer, significantly increases the amount of estrogen in her body (usually from eating Tofu), or increases the tiny amount of natural testosterone in her body (from other chemicals), it interferes with the process.
While again, this will not determine sexual attraction, it will play some considerable part in the secondary sexual characteristics of the offspring. Either androgyny, more feminine males, or more masculine females.
When this was first discovered in the 1960s, they evaluated the gamut of variations, even putting testosterone in just half the brain, but not the other half, which resulted in both male and female mating behavior, the animal, but not human, version of bisexuality.
To conclude, once again, humans are a lot more complicated. But this is a serious problem.