Gender-bending estrogen waste

This Daily Mail story actually predates by almost 2 weeks the AP story I posted March 10 on sex hormones infiltrating the water supply with dastardly consequences. But I just discovered it. Obviously, the 2 are related:

... Scientists at Cardiff University have discovered that the brains of male starlings foraging for worms at a sewage treatment works in South-West England have been subtly changed by being contaminated by oestrogen from the contraceptive pill and hormone replacement therapy (HRT).

gender%20bender.jpg

The female hormones - present in women's urine, and passing through the sewage treatment unaffected - caused the part of the brain that controls their song to grow much bigger, causing them to sing at greater length and with even more virtuosity than usual.

The study confirms similar, if slightly differing, research on other birds, which scientists say is adding up to some of the first concrete proof of the effects of gender benders on the natural world....

Researchers at the University of California have found that feeding female finches with a hormone used in HRT has caused them to sing, something hitherto done only by their males....

Yet there have been strange warning signs for decades. Way back in the early 1970s, researchers found that female gulls had taken to nesting together all over the U.S., the males having apparently lost interest.

When the bashful males were caught and examined, they were found to have developed female egg-laying canals.

In the 1980s, researchers in Florida found that alligators were failing to reproduce because their males had mysteriously tiny penises; further investigations revealed that they had developed female hormone patterns - and that turtles in the same waters had developed into hermaphrodites.

Most alarming of all, repeated studies by Britain's own Environment Agency have shown that about a third of the male roach in rivers and streams right across the country have begun producing eggs, after developing female sex organs.

Again, the problem was traced to oestrogen passing through sewage works - in some areas, near particularly heavy inflows of treated water, all the males were found to be between sexes....

sperm.jpg

Studies in more than 20 countries have shown that average amounts have fallen by well over half in the past 50 years, from an average of more than 150 million per millilitre to 66 million.

The result is that men are now less than half as fertile as hamsters.

The counts are continuing to plunge by 2% a year, and no end to the decline is in sight. At this rate, the average man will be unable to father children within decades.

Increasingly the sperm crisis is being blamed on a whole host of chemicals, not just synthetic oestrogen, but a wide variety of substances that have become ubiquitous in daily life....

Scientists at Rotterdam's Erasmus University have found that boys born to mothers exposed to PCBs grew up wanting to play with dolls and tea-sets.

And research at the University of Rochester in New York State has shown that the male children of women exposed to phthalates have smaller penises and other signs of feminisation of their genitals.

Communities exposed to high levels of these and other gender-bender chemicals, from the Great Lakes of North America to the Russian Arctic, have been found to give birth to twice as many girls as boys.

This may offer a clue to the cause of a mysterious shift in the sex of babies worldwide.

Normally 106 boys are born for every 100 girls, in what is thought to be nature's way of compensating for the fact that males were more likely to be killed hunting or in conflict.

But increasingly this ratio is slipping - it is calculated that 250,000 babies who would have been boys have been born girls in the U.S. and Japan alone....

[HT: Judie Brown of American Life League]


Comments:

I had an argument on this board with someone last year over this issue. I was shouted down by who ever it was that there was no proof.

Well, more and more, there's proof that synthetic estrogen is becoming a serious problem, along with a host of other chemicals. My research for my Masters degree involved groundwater contamination and I studied trace contaminants - mostly inorganic ones such as arsenic, boron etc. So I know something about how minor amounts of chemicals can multiply in the ecosystem and create problems.

I also read somewhere, a recent study of fish taken in the Great Lakes and the scientist said he would not each any of the fish out of these lakes (I don't and haven't for years). Many of the fish had no discernable sex. Many had numerous tumours.

It's just not going to be politically correct to get scientists to rethink the whole synthetic estrogen question - they'll be eaten alive by the rabid feminist movement.

Posted by: Patricia at March 12, 2008 11:48 AM


And could contaminated tap water consumed by pregnant women have the tiniest influence on the rates of children with homosexual inclinations?

Posted by: Cranky Catholic at March 12, 2008 12:08 PM


And could contaminated tap water consumed by pregnant women have the tiniest influence on the rates of children with homosexual inclinations?

Oh man, here we go....

Posted by: Elizabeth at March 12, 2008 12:29 PM


we're still paying for feminist agenda...in more ways than one. This is what happens when you mess with nature.

Posted by: jasper at March 12, 2008 12:31 PM


Cranky Catholic:
Let's stick to the issue of estrogens in the water.
It depends upon the concentration of whatever is in that water.
Don't forget the water that is pulled from rivers and lakes is used to irrigate crops, feed cattle, process foods, beverages etc.
The number of exposures is multiple and if things likes organics are not removed, the concentration a person is exposed to can become significant.
Who knows, maybe a woman on the pill will already have an excess of estrogen in her system (we know it's pee'd out but what about those women who get pregnant on the pill and still take the pills for weeks after without knowing this).
We also don't know how sensitive a developing embryo is to hormonal chemicals.

Really, the BC pill is one big experiment.
Am I glad I never took them and I've mostly drank well water.

Posted by: Patricia at March 12, 2008 12:47 PM


*gulps a big glass of tap water*

Yummy!

Posted by: Ari-chan at March 12, 2008 12:53 PM


Patricia,
I know they said that there are very small amounts of this in the water. On my local news they compared the amounts affecting humans to a sugar cube in a swimming pool.

However,
As you stated above, with all of the other exposures ie vegetables, fish and meat we eat, could this equate to humans having so many infertility problems?

Posted by: Sandy at March 12, 2008 1:11 PM


I had an argument on this board with someone last year over this issue. I was shouted down by who ever it was that there was no proof.

Well, more and more, there's proof that synthetic estrogen is becoming a serious problem, along with a host of other chemicals. My research for my Masters degree involved groundwater contamination and I studied trace contaminants - mostly inorganic ones such as arsenic, boron etc. So I know something about how minor amounts of chemicals can multiply in the ecosystem and create problems.

I also read somewhere, a recent study of fish taken in the Great Lakes and the scientist said he would not each any of the fish out of these lakes (I don't and haven't for years). Many of the fish had no discernable sex. Many had numerous tumours.

It's just not going to be politically correct to get scientists to rethink the whole synthetic estrogen question - they'll be eaten alive by the rabid feminist movement.

Posted by: Patricia at March 12, 2008 11:48 AM
............................................................

It's a great deal safer to eat fish from the great lakes now than back in my day. Fish were toxic from the industrial waste being pumped into the lakes. Of course that wouldn't have anything to do with tumors. Women swimming in the lake, leaving traces of estrogen, make fish sick. @@ Never mind that the contamination was causing birth defects.
Did a paper on inorganic contaminates and you are now an expert on contaminated ground water? There is a job for you at one of the rags Jill likes to borrow thoughtless commentary from.
Water contamination could not possibly be caused by men's irresponsible farming and industrial habits. It's women and their damn estrogen.
Better not eat anything Patricia. It's all contaminated by artificial estrogen pumped into the animal flesh you eat and sprayed all over your fruits and vegetable. Never mind that! Women peeing is going to be the cause of your death! @@
Clearly just being a woman and naturally producing estrogen is an example of the inherent evil of women.

Posted by: Sally at March 12, 2008 1:13 PM



Normally 106 boys are born for every 100 girls, in what is thought to be nature's way of compensating for the fact that males were more likely to be killed hunting or in conflict.

But increasingly this ratio is slipping - it is calculated that 250,000 babies who would have been boys have been born girls in the U.S. and Japan alone....
.....................................................

Could it be that more women are using the NFP method of birth control making oopsies more likely to be girls? Of course that's a bad thing because women are poisoning the world by peeing. Oh my god! What on earth are they doing to those babies? Passing their evil estrogen to them through breast milk? It's all a feminist plot!

Posted by: Sally at March 12, 2008 1:24 PM


Hi Sally,
SYNTHETIC estrogen is what we are talking about. SYNTHETIC.
Continue ranting.....

Posted by: Carla at March 12, 2008 1:37 PM


Hi Sally,
SYNTHETIC estrogen is what we are talking about. SYNTHETIC.
Continue ranting.....

Posted by: Carla at March 12, 2008 1:37 PM

.....................................................

Yes dear. The kind pumped into the pigs, chicken and cows you eat. Their chemical filled manure is sprayed all over the countryside contaminating vegetation and water supplies. Of course that has nothing to do with the subject. The true evil is women wishing not to become pregnant or wishing to stabilize the negative effects of a lack of estrogen and their health. And then having the audacity of urinating. Those evil women are killing us all!

Posted by: Sally at March 12, 2008 1:52 PM


Sally,
I believe that the situation re: fish in the GL has changed considerably once again.

"Did a paper on inorganic contaminates and you are now an expert on contaminated ground water?"

Actually Sally I spent 4 years of my life doing my research and wrote 3 papers as well as did a presentation at a GSA conference in Orlando. I don't claim to be an "expert"

Most of the pollution in the 50's 60's and 70's was inorganic type chemicals but also PCB's and DDT.
Now we have other types of contaminants - estrogens, flame retardents, antibiotics and other prescription drugs as well as a chemical created inside the bodies of people who smoke.

We now have millions upon millions of women who take BC who live around these lakes and pee into them estrogen containing urine. Logic tells us that this might be having an environmental effect.
Your dramatics are uncalled for - women are not evil, but the use of BC harms women and the envirnoment.
Unfortunately, womens rights are hinged on reproductive freedom - not all of us women agree with the approach taken by radical feminista's the past 40 years!

Posted by: Patricia at March 12, 2008 2:09 PM


What I want to know is why, if there are such high amounts of synthetic estrogen in the sewage treatment plants, that women wanting not to be pregnant are to blame and not the authorities charged with filtering the water? I agree that the environment and other human beings wishing not to be exposed to synthetic estrogen have a right to be protected from it, but that's not the job of the women using birth control pills- it's the job of the sewage plants and other authorities in charge of putting clean water back into circulation. Don't put the blame on women who -GOD FORBID- have no desire to get pregnant. Have the authorities change their filtration processes to pick up these chemicals. Don't use this unfortunate occurrence to push the idea that no women should ever have the right to prevent pregnancy. It's a really low tactic.

And by the way:

"Scientists at Rotterdam's Erasmus University have found that boys born to mothers exposed to PCBs grew up wanting to play with dolls and tea-sets."

How is this alarming? Tell me exactly what is wrong with little boys choosing to play with tea-sets. Should little boys and girls be socialized to play with certain toys just because they happen to be of a certain gender? I tell you what, this kind of ignorance just causes me to boil over with rage. When and if I have children, they will be given every opportunity to play with any toys they like, not just toys thought to be "acceptable" for little boys and little girls. My sons as well as my daughters will have trucks, dolls, house sets, and sports equipment, and will be given the CHOICE to play with whatever they want. Socializing our children from little on up to assume roles based on archaic, outdated traditional gender boundaries is wrong. Many studies have shown that children raised androgynously, and given the choice to play with toys they like and not told what to do BASED ON GENDER (ie. "Don't play with dolls, Billy", or "Girls are quiet and polite, Suzie"), end up being better-adjusted adults and more confident people. Children are CHILDREN, not little adults to be molded into outdated gender roles. If my boys want to play with tea-sets and dolls, you better bet your damn last dollar that that's what I'll be getting them, because children have the right to play with whatever toy they want. And if my girls want to play with trucks outside and leave their Barbies unused, I'll be more than happy to buy them their own Hotwheels figurines and books with trucks in them.

Posted by: Lyssie at March 12, 2008 2:15 PM


Increasingly the sperm crisis is being blamed on a whole host of chemicals, not just synthetic oestrogen, but a wide variety of substances that have become ubiquitous in daily life....

This seems to be the most germane part of the article to me ... the majority of instances affecting humans seemed to be the ones that did not include artificial estrogen.

Posted by: Anonymous at March 12, 2008 2:22 PM


Lyssie right on!

Posted by: prettyinpink at March 12, 2008 2:26 PM


Lyssie says, "children have the right to play with whatever toy they want."

So why do children need parents anyway? Let them play with whatever they want... the station wagon, the dead squirrel in the road, oh look... kerosene and matches!

Posted by: Cranky Catholic at March 12, 2008 2:29 PM


Well Cranky Catholic,
we use to tell my son (he's now 18) to go play on the road when he was being naughty...
(just kidding..)

Posted by: Patricia at March 12, 2008 2:36 PM



We now have millions upon millions of women who take BC who live around these lakes and pee into them estrogen containing urine. Logic tells us that this might be having an environmental effect.
Your dramatics are uncalled for - women are not evil, but the use of BC harms women and the envirnoment.
Unfortunately, womens rights are hinged on reproductive freedom - not all of us women agree with the approach taken by radical feminista's the past 40 years!
Posted by: Patricia at March 12, 2008 2:09 PM
...............................................

You are completely ignoring the absolute fact that corporate farming practices are to blame for pollution and attempting to blame bc. There is absolutely nothing logical in your assertion. If bc pills had never existed, we would have the same pollution problem and you'd have to find some other way to vilify women for their right to reproductive freedom.

Posted by: Sally at March 12, 2008 2:37 PM


On-Crank Catholic:

I said with whatever TOY they want. As in, a specifically-designed object built for the fun and SAFETY of children. If you were capable of reading without using your ass-backwards conservative slant on everything, maybe you'd comprehend what I'm saying. I didn't saying whatever OBJECT they want, whatever TOY they want. Idiot.

Posted by: Lyssie at March 12, 2008 2:38 PM


CC, lol!

Posted by: heather at March 12, 2008 2:38 PM


Idiot.

Posted by: Lyssie at March 12, 2008 2:38 PM************** That's not nice.

Posted by: heather at March 12, 2008 2:43 PM


Heather:

You're hardly the moral police when you're calling Sally evil on the other post.

Besides, if Cranky Catholic was halfway intelligent he/she would read my post in its entirety and realize I'm talking about TOYS, not dangerous objects. How stupid does one have to be to totally misconstrue my post? If it talks like an idiot, processes thoughts like an idiot, and acts like an idiot, it's not a damn duck.

End.

Posted by: Lyssie at March 12, 2008 2:47 PM


Lyssie,

I have no problem with boys playing with tea-sets or baby dolls..whatever. It doesn't matter. I am not going to prejudice them to whatever toy they want to play with. My daughter loves to play with toy cars...and who cares? They're young..and innocent..we shouldn't shatter that innocence by putting our stereotypes on it because they don't even understand what any of it means. They just like playing with the toy. I played with dolls when I was young and I used to climb trees with my brothers. It means absolutely nothing! If it is age-appropriate for the child who cares really?

**On a side note, this got me to thinking about what I used to play with when I was little, and I remember how I used to give ALL my dollies haircuts. My mom LOVED this. She didn't care so much about the Barbies, but that American Girl's hair that I cut once..she was NONE too happy about. She had to send it to the doll hospital for a new head. hehe. Now everytime Gabriella hits her head on something I say, "Baby you have to be careful with your head, I can't go to the store and buy you a new one of those." Lol.

Posted by: Elizabeth at March 12, 2008 2:47 PM


"On-Crank Catholic:"

I know it's totally mean but I gotta say it made me chuckle.

Posted by: prettyinpink at March 12, 2008 2:48 PM


"If bc pills had never existed, we would have the same pollution problem and you'd have to find some other way to vilify women for their right to reproductive freedom."

You cannot know the first statement for a fact since the amount of estrogen being pee'd into the environment is not insignificant.

Women have no such right as reproductive freedom. This is just a misnomer for abortion. Women have the right to make a choice as to whether to have sex or not. They can choose for the most part when that will happen and they can choose to learn about their beautiful body and how it works.

I don't want my rights to be treated equally - that is a person and respecting my dignity as a woman AND my ability to bear children - to hinge on the right to kill unborn babies.
Thanks but no thanks, I'll pass on that one.
What kind of people are we if we gain our rights as women at the expense of a group of people - children who we are suppose to protect (as mothers) and who have no voice.

Posted by: Patricia at March 12, 2008 2:48 PM


Sally,
I beg you to put the bottle down. You are just a mean drunk who can't stop the "woman basher" binge rages.

Why are you attacking Patricia? I admire her work and thank goodness people like Patricia take an interest in this subject that affects everyone.

Grow up and quit insulting everyone on this site who happens not to agree with your feminazi crap you spew every chance you get.

Posted by: Sandy at March 12, 2008 2:52 PM


Elizabeth:

That's wonderful! I personally plan on buying loads of both pink and blue for both my boys and girls...colors themselves confer gender stereotypes. If you ever go to a large department store, go to the toy section and see what types of toys are being marketed to different genders (often they are packaged with colors designating which gender they are for). The information gathered is frightening to think about. Our children are shuttled into restricted roles from little on up...which is horrible. Children shouldn't have to fit an adult agenda. I really found it horrible that all the fun, educational toys were marketed solely to boys...boys were primarily featured on boxes and the packaging the toys came in, along with colors usually associated with boys. It made me really think hard about how our girls are treated from little on up to not be challenged to think and learn. Also, little boys are directly pointed away from playing with dolls, socializing them to think that caring for others is not a job they should have to consider. Both boys and girls are cheated out of the full range of human capability by toy gender socialization. I consider that a subtle form of child abuse, and I will not be privy to it.

Posted by: Lyssie at March 12, 2008 2:57 PM


Sandy, would you mind if I got your e-mail from one of the mods? I wanted to ask you about Washington DC.

Posted by: heather at March 12, 2008 2:58 PM


OH, why thank you Sandy! I always take a beating on this blog!!

Posted by: Patricia at March 12, 2008 2:58 PM


Patricia,

I agree that you're being unfairly singled out. I can also agree that the problem of hormonal exposure in the water is serious. But I object to the notion that blaming women who use birth control is the right mode of action. It's the agencies in charge of cleaning our water that need to be called into question, not women choosing to restrict pregnancy in their busy lives. It is not their responsibility to clean the water released into our environment, it's the sewage treatment plants. That's the equivalent of blaming the many pregnant women, who experience jumps of natural estrogen 1000x the normal level, for the problem, as they release much natural estrogen through their urine. Both natural and synthetic will do the same trick.

Posted by: Lyssie at March 12, 2008 3:03 PM


Patricia, excellent post. Forgot to tell you so.

Posted by: heather at March 12, 2008 3:03 PM


Lyssie, I understand what you are saying. I really liked fisher-price toys for when Gabriella was an infant because they were completely gender-neutral and more focused on the learning aspect than anything related to gender. Gabriella loves to color and draw so she has an art desk she got for her birthday which she loves. And she loves her baby doll. She also loves her ball and blocks and cars. I am not trying to mold her into anything based on gender...just giving her options and she chooses whatever it is that she likes. I think it's wrong for people to mold there children into whatever it is they think they SHOULD be instead of just letting them be who they are. This creates wayyy too high of expectations for young children and often leaves both parents and children feeling disappointed. It is tragic how much it can also damage the self-esteem of a young child.

Posted by: Elizabeth at March 12, 2008 3:04 PM


Two things make me sad: 1) infertility. 2)What about those 250,000 extra "girls"? Are they really girls? Are they actually little boys deprived of testosterone or overly estrogen-ized? What happens to these "girls" at puberty, when every single cell in their bodies is announcing "I'm an XY!!!!" to the world? How are we as a society going to help them bridge the psychological gap from wanting to be a mommy when they grow up to wanting to be a man and a daddy? Are we conservative pro-lifers ready to help these boys be the men that they were meant to be, even though they began life in pigtails? Should we genetically test every child at birth, in order to make sure that the "girls" are XX and the "boys" are XY?

Posted by: Marianna at March 12, 2008 3:06 PM


Heather,
No Problem! That would be great!

Posted by: Sandy at March 12, 2008 3:06 PM


"Women have no such right as reproductive freedom. "

OH NO I've gotta disagree with that. Reproductive freedoms that SHOULD be enforced include:

No forced sterilizations
No forced abortions
No forced marriage
No child marriage
Access to life-saving obstetric care

Posted by: prettyinpink at March 12, 2008 3:10 PM


pip,

I think she was only talking about abortion as far as reproductive freedom is concerned.

P.S. Have you talked to MK? Are we all going to get together when you come here or what's the deal?

Posted by: Elizabeth at March 12, 2008 3:16 PM


That's wonderful! I personally plan on buying loads of both pink and blue for both my boys and girls...colors themselves confer gender stereotypes. If you ever go to a large department store, go to the toy section and see what types of toys are being marketed to different genders (often they are packaged with colors designating which gender they are for). The information gathered is frightening to think about. Our children are shuttled into restricted roles from little on up...which is horrible. Children shouldn't have to fit an adult agenda. I really found it horrible that all the fun, educational toys were marketed solely to boys...boys were primarily featured on boxes and the packaging the toys came in, along with colors usually associated with boys. It made me really think hard about how our girls are treated from little on up to not be challenged to think and learn. Also, little boys are directly pointed away from playing with dolls, socializing them to think that caring for others is not a job they should have to consider. Both boys and girls are cheated out of the full range of human capability by toy gender socialization. I consider that a subtle form of child abuse, and I will not be privy to it.

Posted by: Lyssie at March 12, 2008 2:57 PM

Lyssie,
I have a daughter and a son. My daughter is 4 years older. We never bought gender specific toys for her. She was given dolls, blocks and trucks. She always without any prompting would play with dolls. When my son came along, and was old enough to play with toys, he played the all of the toys my daugter had that were geared towards boys.

I think you will quickly find out that boys are boys and girs are girls. My daughter was automatically more interested in playing with dolls. She had gotten trucks, fishing poles, tool sets etc. for birthdays and always preferred the dolls.

When my son was old enough to start making decisions on which toys he wanted to play with, there were plenty of dolls around the house. He chose to play with trucks, building blocks and tool sets.

Without any influence from us, the stories they pick from books also follow the boy-girl gender norms.

My daughter picks princess and horse stories, my son loves Monsters, Inc. Toy story and Cars.

I don't think you need to overthink any of this. Your children's decisions are their own.

Posted by: Sandy at March 12, 2008 3:20 PM


Yes, you're correct Elizabeth. And of course, I do agree with what you listed their PIP and can include genital mutilation as well.

Posted by: Patricia at March 12, 2008 3:27 PM


Good Patricia! That sentence just rung with me.

Elizabeth, MK never replied to any of my posts, but I'd still love to get together!

Posted by: prettyinpink at March 12, 2008 3:50 PM


Hmm, pip, she hasn't been on much lately..when are you coming again?

Posted by: Elizabeth at March 12, 2008 3:52 PM


I believe MK, Bethany and Bobby Bambino are camping out in the theology post.......

Posted by: Carla at March 12, 2008 4:32 PM


I believe MK, Bethany and Bobby Bambino are camping out in the theology post.......

If they're making s'mores I'm there.

Posted by: Elizabeth at March 12, 2008 4:35 PM


LOL. I will be in town from midday 14th to the 20th in the morning.

Posted by: prettyinpink at March 12, 2008 4:40 PM


OK, pip, I will see what my schedule is like those days.

Posted by: Elizabeth at March 12, 2008 5:08 PM


Sounds good!

Posted by: prettyinpink at March 12, 2008 5:09 PM


That's really interesting, Sandy. It was the exact opposite with myself and my brother. My parents raised me with all different toys, but I, without fail, chose the stereotypically "boy toys"...always playing with linkin' logs, building sets, cars, science kits, you name it. My brother played with my Barbies. Isn't that funny how it works? I'm sincerely glad that your kids were able to pick for themselves, though...I know way too many people that would, however, pick a little boy up if he started playing with little girls and dollies...that makes me sad. I remember being told not to play tag in elementary school with the boys because the teacher says "it's too rough for a little girl". Bullcrap, I was bigger than most of the boys, and faster. But everytime I wanted to play, I was yelled at. It drives me insane.

Posted by: Lyssie at March 12, 2008 8:23 PM


Lyssie,
I know kids will just do their own thing. One of my friend's son was so into Sleeping Beauty he would dress up and pretend to be the witch.
He was an only child and had only boy toys.

He loved to paint his nails. She just let him have at it since it was fun, and she figured no big deal. He was always a fanatic about his socks matching and his hair always had to be perfect before they left the house. All this and he was still under 5 years old.

She never discouraged any of this behavior and figured he is who he is. No reason to make a big deal out of it.

Posted by: Sandy at March 12, 2008 8:41 PM


Taking hormane in concentrations sufficient to disrupt your menstrual cycle. You probably have a higher concentration in your body then the gender bending fish have in their bodies. You can't believe high concentrations of synthetic hormones is safe for a woman's health.

Posted by: truthseeker at March 13, 2008 1:07 AM


the brains of male starlings foraging for worms at a sewage treatment works in South-West England have been subtly changed by being contaminated by oestrogen from the contraceptive pill and hormone replacement therapy (HRT).


The female hormones - present in women's urine, and passing through the sewage treatment unaffected - caused the part of the brain that controls their song to grow much bigger, causing them to sing at greater length and with even more virtuosity than usual.

Does this mean that one of these days, when the fat lady sings, her name will be "Bruce"?

Posted by: Doug at March 13, 2008 9:29 AM


Taking hormane in concentrations sufficient to disrupt your menstrual cycle. You probably have a higher concentration in your body then the gender bending fish have in their bodies. You can't believe high concentrations of synthetic hormones is safe for a woman's health.

Posted by: truthseeker at March 13, 2008 1:07 AM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Gee, I take a low-dose progesterone pill. It mimics pregnancy, but uses a dose of progesterone LOWER than the levels that would be found normally during a peregnancy.
If that's bad for you, then a pregnancy must be REALLY bad for you.

Posted by: FetusFascist at March 13, 2008 10:47 AM


FF,
FF, administration of synthetic hormones (and they conveniently label yours low dose to make you feel good about it) in a concentartion sufficient to disrupt "normal" body functions and processes is going to have adverse consequences. When you are pregnant the body produces and uses those hormones for natural
processes that occur during pregnancy. That is a NIG difference.

You have the right to take them if you want but this generation is a guinea pig generation being administered these synthetic hormone concentrations over several years and they will likely suffer side effects including but not limited t reproductive health problems and cancer of the reproductive organs. The drug companies will not stop until the empirical data is overwhelming. Nobody (including yourself or the FDA can know the consequences since the emerical data needs to be reviewed over the next decades. But it is common sense/logical that this generation of young girls will suffer negative health consequences from their choice to introduce these concentrations of synthetic hormones into their bodies.

Posted by: truthseeker at March 13, 2008 11:24 AM


well it's not the kind of news that is worth discussing. i wonder why are you all here so excited?

Posted by: I_am_n_alien at April 6, 2008 12:27 PM


This whole situation is SO absurd. Your post strikes as serious for you only. What can we do but make jokes about it?

Posted by: alwaysLovely at April 9, 2008 4:55 AM