Soy
I have to admit, when I first read this article my first response was to jump on the bandwagon with the rest of the Metaquotes community and condemn the silly man for his 'soy + babies = gay babies' argument, but after a little bit of research I'm starting to wonder whether that would be doing him at least a bit of injustice.
To get an overview, at least, of the science, have a look at this from the superb T-Nation. The studies cited suggest that soy protein:
So why the uproar? Mr Rutz might be using emotive language when he describes the effect of soy as 'feminizing', but at least his sensasionist story is backed up by more science and fact than most. It seems that there are two points that he is making that are getting people's backs up: first, that these 'feminizing' effects are turning otherwise straight kids gay; and second that 'homosexuality is always deviant'.
My problem with the LJ's universally indignant response is that they let their reaction to the second point dictate their response to the first. For example, the quote which led me to the story was:
'Wow. You know, I'd comment more on how ridiculously idiotic that is, but I just had a soy latte and my period started.' ( link)
As I read it, that is 0% 'I have read your article and consider the science behind it and the logic employed to be insufficient to justify your conclusions' and 100% 'Hur hur, let's laugh at the silly religous freak for being so old fashioned and illiberal'. It has been said before that there is a difference between being liberal and being tolerant and that's quite apparent here.
It seems to me that it all stems from the desperate desire to accept the principle that gay people are born gay and that we're totally cool with that. I'm sure some people are born gay. But is it not also possible that some babies who may have been 'born straight' could be affected in some way by high levels of a protein which dramatically cuts their testosterone levels (and has been shown to have demonstrable physical effects, at least on rats), whether that effect is on their sexuality or something else? If we're so open-minded, why can we not at least discuss this suggestion instead of dismissing it with hilarious one-liners? Shouldn't a truly liberal response be to acknowledge that increased soy intake in early life can lead to reduction in mascline traits, question whether it possible that this could 'cause' (promote?) homosexuality and ask whether, if it does, we are bothered?
The story may have been intended as a scare story for the anti-homosexuality crowd, but if you can't consider its contents fairly before dismissing it because of its perceived message or aim then you're being no less prejudiced than the guy who wrote it.
To get an overview, at least, of the science, have a look at this from the superb T-Nation. The studies cited suggest that soy protein:
- can significantly reduce testosterone production in men
- does not inhibit estrogen
- when given to pregnant rats leads to smaller offspring
- when given to baby rats leads to decreased spermatogenesis and reduced body weight and testicle size
So why the uproar? Mr Rutz might be using emotive language when he describes the effect of soy as 'feminizing', but at least his sensasionist story is backed up by more science and fact than most. It seems that there are two points that he is making that are getting people's backs up: first, that these 'feminizing' effects are turning otherwise straight kids gay; and second that 'homosexuality is always deviant'.
My problem with the LJ's universally indignant response is that they let their reaction to the second point dictate their response to the first. For example, the quote which led me to the story was:
'Wow. You know, I'd comment more on how ridiculously idiotic that is, but I just had a soy latte and my period started.' ( link)
As I read it, that is 0% 'I have read your article and consider the science behind it and the logic employed to be insufficient to justify your conclusions' and 100% 'Hur hur, let's laugh at the silly religous freak for being so old fashioned and illiberal'. It has been said before that there is a difference between being liberal and being tolerant and that's quite apparent here.
It seems to me that it all stems from the desperate desire to accept the principle that gay people are born gay and that we're totally cool with that. I'm sure some people are born gay. But is it not also possible that some babies who may have been 'born straight' could be affected in some way by high levels of a protein which dramatically cuts their testosterone levels (and has been shown to have demonstrable physical effects, at least on rats), whether that effect is on their sexuality or something else? If we're so open-minded, why can we not at least discuss this suggestion instead of dismissing it with hilarious one-liners? Shouldn't a truly liberal response be to acknowledge that increased soy intake in early life can lead to reduction in mascline traits, question whether it possible that this could 'cause' (promote?) homosexuality and ask whether, if it does, we are bothered?
The story may have been intended as a scare story for the anti-homosexuality crowd, but if you can't consider its contents fairly before dismissing it because of its perceived message or aim then you're being no less prejudiced than the guy who wrote it.