| |
|
I'm not sure I agree that the physical evidence that industrial chemicals are doing *something* to unborn babies should automatically set alarm bells ringing Folic acid does "something" to unborn babies, but it doesn't harm them (and I know it's not an industrial chemical, but I was trying to avoid falling into the idea that "natural" chemicals necessarily have a positive effect on foetuses and "industrial" ones necessarily have a negative one).
Weeelll. I think that even a suspicion of the use of a "natural" category would still allow room for one to distinguish between a vitamin and industrial waste and byproducts. (Of course, a vitamin may *be* a byproduct..I'm getting to that.) But even so, one should realise that the use of folic acid as a supplement has had to undergo testing for potential side effects. And if it were the case that folic acid were causing unintended physical effects as a result of chemical dumping, say, then I would say exactly the same thing. Alarm bells should ring and one would at the very least expect a series of studies to determine whether there were any dangers associated with these effects. This is, as I understand it, a fairly uncontroversial application of the precautionary principle which most environmentalists accept. Your somewhat laissez-faire comment is most often articulated by polluters and unethical companies - for instance in the GM debate. I'm sure you don't have any sympathy at all with those guys, but I feel it worth pointing out how these arguments play out.
From what little I know, I'd guess that subcultureofone is right and the phthalates are causing incomplete masculinization of foetuses,
Yes. I sort of took that as read. One has to remember that science reporting is abysmal. Scientists need to communicate findings to the public via a press that has little interest in academic equivocation or terminology. As such, it may be the the term "feminisation" is just a convenient shorthand with enough of the right sort of associations to convey what is going on. That said, it may also be standard terminology - I really don't know. But terminology is a really tricky area, where one has to label phenomena by some natural language phrase that is somehow suggestive, while trying to remember that all the associated baggage isn't necessarily that helpful. Reading your comments below, you don't seem particularly happy with the term "incomplete masculisation" either, saying that you are interested in what's emerging, from some of the stuff I've read, as a myth* of masculinisation as a long, heroic, difficult struggle for a foetus to achieve.
Care to try come up with a phrase for the interruption of this biological process which *doesn't* evoke this "myth", or some other? I think it is pretty tricky, because of existing gender norms and their associations, rather than because of any scientific support of those norms. Perhaps that is your point.
I'm a bit confused by your assertion that "these points" ...
Yes, sorry, that was me not reading the article thoroughly and writing my post too quickly. I'm not sure, exactly, what he means but I would make an educated guess that he means the following: Taken over a significant number of animals, one can observe various behaviours and patterns associated to males and females of that particular species. Within each species, one observes deviations from expected behavior of the males when these symptoms arise. "Male identity" is probably this sort of hedged aggregate relaive to species. It may also be possible to talk sensibly about "male" behaviour over a variety of different species with the understanding that the term becomes increasingly coarse as it widens its domain of applicability. - I myself am calling this process into question in another lab thread - So, as you say, while seahorses are exceptional in terms of males and their relation to their young, one can still observe that it is the females which tend to take care of their young in most mammalian species (I think). (Naturally, it is impossible to be anywhere near this circumspect in mainstream newspaper. Largely, communicating to the press involves simplifying the message so that is comprehensible by the scientifically illiterate, yet still retains a measure of accuracy.)
All that seemed to me to be belabouring the obvious, however. Surely, you can't possibly think that biologists have some cast iron definition of "male identity" that pays no attention to species? When you can come up with an counter-example off the top of your head?
As for the biological terms resonating with myth...you would have to work harder to convince me that it isn't something that you yourself are primarily bringing to the table, in treating these terms as inescably cultural - like the castration anxiety comments in your starting post. Having said that, I think you do have something of a point, you are just overstating it and making too many unsupported jumps for it to have enough bite. |
|
|
