The first problem reported with plasticizers was endocrine disruption [1]. This has been linked to the reduction of fetal anogenital distance, a key marker in determining the sex of a fetus [2]. This causes various reproductive disorders [3].
I am convinced that this contributes to the apparent feminization of human societies, a topic that apparently cannot be brought up for discussion in the US due to the ludicrous contemporary political climate.
Your comment about the political climate made me remember this. I cannot find the specific reference but in one of his lectures (on Youtube), Sapolsky talks about how some gay people felt offended in the 70's by research about the relation between brain structure and sexual orientation, since they felt it treated their sexual orientation as a pathology. Sapolsky contrasts it with the more recent enthusiasm about similar research, because people felt it would prove being gay was not a matter of choice or bad nurture. In political contexts, people blindly replace connotation for implication. Whereas implication is a concern of Logic (and hence, Science), connotation is a concern of intuition (or should I say, instinct) about constantly changing cultural ideals.
I have seen that lecture and it's great but please see my comment below and consider that the parent may not be that lone hero of hard science and facts against the politics of emotion which I suspect is the narrative it's trying to establish. (It's a trap ;)
Wow, could you elaborate or backup this claim? Do you mean that it explains that there are more female born than male? Probably not since you say it can't be talked about so you're hinting at a more ideological and thus controversial claim : That masculine values are on the down or something of that kind.
If that's your opinion, well it is a classic overheard reactionary argument about the pacification of social relationships and how war forge "real" men and you just disappointed me.
Parent is unintentionally supporting grandparent's point.
In any event the secular testosterone decline[1] corresponds roughly with the mass production of consumer plastic goods. No way to tease apart all the confounding variables though so it could be something else causing that.
I don’t know, but they may be referring to studies that postulate environmental (as well as other) factors contributing to the general lowering of testosterone and fertility in men over the past few decades.
Your stating how GP's post makes you feel followed by completely dismissing the evidence GP offers and deciding its truth value based solely on your emotional response is exactly what GP is talking about.
The evidence he provides is of hormonal disruption that seems seem to affect secondary sexual characteristics not of a so called "feminization of society" which if he was trying to get his point across may have taken extra steps like saying "the femalization of society" even though the "of society" is also suspect in retrospect. What about "the regression of male characters in newborn babies"? Seems more reasonable. But back to my point: The parent is trying to conflate hard evidence of something with a very broad claim which is a typical rethorical tactic of conspiracy theorists and altrighters.
In the vein of trying to follow the HN guidelines to assume good faith, my assumption was that were referring to the overall lowering of male testosterone as the “feminization of societies”.
Which is why I asked for clarity, exposed two possible interpretations while taking a guess at which was more probable based on the poorly worded "feminization of society" line. I take notice that I did not get an answer as to which was the intended meaning which only reinforces my feeling. Even further, even if the intended meaning was that testicles are shrinking worldwide... Well, that's interesting but I am more concerned by the rise of cancers and other worrying stuff (although there might be a link, curious to know more)
But sometimes you need to call out pseudoscientific bullshit for what it is, instead of bending over backwards to find an acceptable interpretation of what someone could have meant when they said dumb shit.
This is the reason there are guidelines to try an ensure a modicum of civility. There are more charitable ways of disagreeing than calling out “dumb shit”. One way facilitates discourse, the other shuts it down. If the latter is the goal, I don’t know if HN is the right place for you, considering it does note really fit with the guidelines
It's funny that you expect me to find a charitable reading of what I consider an obvious non-sequitur; while denying my comments the same curtesy.
Yes, I used some colorful language; my argument would probably have been stronger without it. I'll try to avoid loaded terms like "dumb shit" in the future.
I have heard something similar is happening to domestic dogs too, which is very interesting, but makes sense as they will be exposed to a lot of what we are. I have no idea what to search for to bring that study up though. I did find one study about BPA levels in canned food causing marked changes just after a few weeks but that's a very small part of the whole picture.
I am convinced that this contributes to the apparent feminization of human societies, a topic that apparently cannot be brought up for discussion in the US due to the ludicrous contemporary political climate.
1: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S001664801...
2: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16079079/
3: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00204-018-2350-5