Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Chemical Pollution Is Destroying Masculinity

Posted by kdawson on Mon Dec 08, 2008 09:05 AM
from the lower-your-voice-and-say-that dept.
myrdos2 writes "A host of common chemicals is feminizing males of every class of vertebrate animals, from fish to mammals, including people. Many have been identified as 'endocrine disruptors' or gender-benders because they interfere with hormones. Communities heavily polluted with gender-benders in Canada, Russia, and Italy have given birth to twice as many girls as boys, which may offer a clue to the mysterious shift in sex ratios worldwide. And a study at Rotterdam's Erasmus University showed that boys whose mothers had been exposed to PCBs grew up wanting to play with dolls and tea sets rather than with traditionally male toys. It also follows hard on the heels of new American research which shows that baby boys born to women exposed to widespread chemicals in pregnancy are born with smaller penises and feminized genitals. It is calculated that 250,000 babies who would have been boys have been born as girls instead in the US and Japan alone. And sperm counts are dropping precipitously. Studies in more than 20 countries have shown that they have dropped from 150 million per milliliter of sperm fluid to 60 million over 50 years."
+ -
story

Related Stories

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • That sucks (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 08 2008, @09:06AM (#26031247)

    On behalf of my fellow males I'd like to say:

    ...shit

    • by ckthorp (1255134) on Monday December 08 2008, @09:08AM (#26031265)
      Yah, but the males that are left have 2x better odds. <sings>TWOOOOO GIRLS FOR EVERY GUY</sings>
      • by Shakrai (717556) on Monday December 08 2008, @09:11AM (#26031297) Journal

        Yah, but the males that are left have 2x better odds. <sings>TWOOOOO GIRLS FOR EVERY GUY</sings>

        If you think that actually means you'll get chicks then I suggest you remember where it is that you are posting ;)

        • by jez9999 (618189) on Monday December 08 2008, @09:14AM (#26031327) Homepage Journal

          Women will get so desperate they can't resist any male guy! My plan is all falling to place. Muahahahahaa.

          • Re:That sucks (Score:5, Informative)

            by Andr T. (1006215) <`andretaff' `at' `gmail.com'> on Monday December 08 2008, @09:19AM (#26031371)

            This makes me think about a period after a war with Brazil and Argentina when Paraguay's government actually encouraged polygamy.

            I could be happy in a place like that.

            • by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 08 2008, @09:29AM (#26031479)

              Polygamy? Most man can hardly tolerate one wife!

            • by Shakrai (717556) on Monday December 08 2008, @09:30AM (#26031491) Journal

              I could be happy in a place like that.

              No you wouldn't, because you can only have sex so many times in a given day. The rest of the day you'd have to put up with female whining -- which is bad enough when it's just coming from one of them.

            • Trust me. I'm married. You wouldn't. Don't get me wrong, I'm very happily married. But one thing being married has taught me -- women are complex, emotional creatures who need a whole lot of care and feeding (well, actually, I knew that before I got married, but you learn it better after you're married). Taking care of one spouse is difficult enough.

              What you want is polyamory, not polygamy. That way you get to have sex with the other women, and you only have take care of one. ;)

            • Re:That sucks (Score:5, Insightful)

              by Tom (822) on Monday December 08 2008, @09:41AM (#26031615) Homepage Journal

              That depends on a lot of other factors besides government encouragement.

              See it like this: Polygamy is here, today. Depending on your culture or country, it might be officially sanctioned (muslims if n=4, or mormons) or not (most of the west, anything else that's catholic). But reality is that it simply takes different forms. In the west, for example, the rich manager simply has an affair. More often with knowledge of his wife than you'd think.

              The common factor is that requires the ability to financially support two wives. That's why in muslim countries, even though they can have up to four wives, the vast majority only have one. They simply can't afford a second one. And that's why in western society, a lot of rich men do have two (or more) wives, going by different official terms, because they can afford to.

              So - you still happy? :-)

      • by msgmonkey (599753) on Monday December 08 2008, @09:28AM (#26031469)

        If it was ever to be the case where polygamy became the norm because of the lack of males, nothing would change!

        Womens selection criteria would still be the same except that now men who had previously been unaviable are avialable.

        If anything this reduces your chances.

      • by caereth (645984) on Monday December 08 2008, @09:32AM (#26031521)
        Unfortunately for slashdotters, 2*0 = 0.
      • by MilesAttacca (1016569) on Monday December 08 2008, @09:46AM (#26031655)
        I have three words for you: "It's a trap!"
  • by tehBoris (1120961) on Monday December 08 2008, @09:09AM (#26031269)
    They are impurifying our precious bodily fluids!
  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 08 2008, @09:09AM (#26031275)

    IT still an almost male-only field. It is simply the most manly of jobs.

  • Aliens! (Score:5, Funny)

    by Ash-Fox (726320) on Monday December 08 2008, @09:11AM (#26031295) Homepage

    Aliens have began the process of converting the majority of the human population to females for their future breeding programmes.

  • by aliquis (678370) <dospam@gmail.com> on Monday December 08 2008, @09:12AM (#26031307) Homepage

    Finally an excuse for my weak body, small penis and my interest for tea. And sadly my limited interest for breasts.

  • Cultural influence (Score:5, Insightful)

    by danieltdp (1287734) on Monday December 08 2008, @09:16AM (#26031339)

    The choice of playing with dolls, tea sets or cars is CULTURAL and not genetic. This have been proved in numerous scientific researches.

    • by PinkyDead (862370) on Monday December 08 2008, @09:49AM (#26031689) Journal

      When my daughter was born, my wife and I were very adamant that she wouldn't have any cultural stereotypes imposed on her. Everything was very gender neutral, but she still ended up being obsessed with Barbie and pink stuff.

      Some years later we had a son, and treated him with the same neutrality (and he had an older sister who was always dressing him in pink) - his first word was 'digger'.

      You may be right - but you'll have a hard time convincing me.

    • by VoidCrow (836595) on Monday December 08 2008, @09:51AM (#26031715)
      Have you ever considered the possibility that the cultural difference may be predicated on a genetic/physiological base? Say, culture states that girls do X therefore I, identifying as a girl, will also do X? And, if physiology allows for obvious physical dimorphism, why should there be no behavioural dimophism? It's clear enough in animal studies and from farming. Check out the word 'freemartin' in relation to cattle sometime. Humans are fundamentally different why?
  • Nails (Score:5, Funny)

    by Rik Sweeney (471717) on Monday December 08 2008, @09:20AM (#26031379) Homepage

    Not only is it destroying our masculinity, but it's making my nails really dirty and I've just had them done :(

  • Bunk (Score:5, Funny)

    by The Fun Guy (21791) on Monday December 08 2008, @09:30AM (#26031499) Homepage Journal

    I played with old electrical transformer as a kid, practically bathing in PCBs. It didn't hurt me any. People see me comin', and it's "Lock up your wives, your daughters and your good silver, Joe's a-comin!"

    I'm the roughest, toughest, meanest, leanest, rootin-est, tootin-est, sharp-damned-shootin-est man you ever had the bad luck to meet! I can drink longer, fight harder, shout louder and piss further than any other man in the Yukon, and anyone who doesn't believe me can step outside!

  • by Shoten (260439) on Monday December 08 2008, @09:44AM (#26031641)

    ...named Oprah?

  • Dilution (Score:5, Funny)

    by verloren (523497) on Monday December 08 2008, @09:51AM (#26031711)

    Interesting that the fall in sperm count goes along with the increasing availability of porn - as the 'spilling of seed' increases the number of sperm left per, um, 'dose' goes down. Now that we have the internet I suspect the figure will slip below double digits within a decade.

    • So will the religious right now be against pollution? I guess not, the religious right are also against science.

      Thats not entirely true. They are against science that does not promote a given point they are trying to make. If it happens to agree with something they like the sound of, they generally quote findings as if the conclusion was known to them for quite some time.
      So in this case it would constitute proof pollution is Gods punishment for everyone being gay.