If toys change penis size, then is this feminization, demasculanization or something else?
I just read an interesting albeit slightly fantastic article: 'Gender-bending' chemicals found to 'feminise' boys. Phthalates, a group of chemicals common in cosmetics, toys, bottles and paints mimic oestrogen in the body, and this study claims that the higher the level of these chemicals in a pregnant woman, the more feminized her son.
I really enjoy reading studies which suggest that what we thought was an innocuous chemical actually has serious, and possibly detrimental, effects on the body. (Insert nod to conspiracy theories involving corporate america). But I don't enjoy it when people equate masculine versus feminine to body parts. This article shows that boys born with higher levels of phthalates have a shorter anogenital distance (AGD), the distance between the anus and the penis, and (thus) a smaller penis. The AGD is typically twice in men what it is in women.
Yes, it worries me that unregulated phthalates are changing babies' bodies, but it also worries me that this article pronounces that shorter AGD and smaller penises equal feminized bodies. Especially when this article goes on to speculate on how phthalates levels affect aspects of "masculinization", like aggressive behavior and rough-and-tumble play. This seems like a stereotype of masculinity.
In the class I taught last semester, one of my students did a project investigating perceptions of livestock. She emailed a picture of a bull to a number of friends, none of whom had ever worked livestock. She asked them to appraise the animal, including asking the animal's sex. When reporting her findings to our class, she classified the sex question as a "trick question", because the bull had been neutered. In this student's view, the totality of masculine traits in the bull were compromised when the genitals were removed.
There's more to judging people than checking whether or not they have a penis and checking how far forward that prominent dick is.
I really enjoy reading studies which suggest that what we thought was an innocuous chemical actually has serious, and possibly detrimental, effects on the body. (Insert nod to conspiracy theories involving corporate america). But I don't enjoy it when people equate masculine versus feminine to body parts. This article shows that boys born with higher levels of phthalates have a shorter anogenital distance (AGD), the distance between the anus and the penis, and (thus) a smaller penis. The AGD is typically twice in men what it is in women.
Yes, it worries me that unregulated phthalates are changing babies' bodies, but it also worries me that this article pronounces that shorter AGD and smaller penises equal feminized bodies. Especially when this article goes on to speculate on how phthalates levels affect aspects of "masculinization", like aggressive behavior and rough-and-tumble play. This seems like a stereotype of masculinity.
In the class I taught last semester, one of my students did a project investigating perceptions of livestock. She emailed a picture of a bull to a number of friends, none of whom had ever worked livestock. She asked them to appraise the animal, including asking the animal's sex. When reporting her findings to our class, she classified the sex question as a "trick question", because the bull had been neutered. In this student's view, the totality of masculine traits in the bull were compromised when the genitals were removed.
There's more to judging people than checking whether or not they have a penis and checking how far forward that prominent dick is.