I dunno. We've been through worse as far as environmental contaminants go. I'm more of the belief that low mortality rates and having children at older ages would be more likely to cause lower sperm counts, etc. The Romans made drinks in lead pots because the lead gave it a nice taste. About a century ago we had dirty factories and no co…
I dunno. We've been through worse as far as environmental contaminants go. I'm more of the belief that low mortality rates and having children at older ages would be more likely to cause lower sperm counts, etc. The Romans made drinks in lead pots because the lead gave it a nice taste. About a century ago we had dirty factories and no concept of health or safety regs. In China and India its bad and that contributes a lot. Our consumption habits and microplastics can't be great though.
I am of the opinion that it is our low fat high carb diets that make us more vulnerable to environmental hormone pollution. Healthy animal fats are necessary for building the cholesterol we need to have healthy hormone levels. When we take away fats, we reduce our natural levels, that makes us more vulnerable to hormones from the environment, which leads to hormonal confusion.
While spiteful mutant theory (the name given by Dr Edward Dutton to explain biological degeneration due to lower mortality rates since the industrial revolution) could indeed account for a lot of the fall in sperm counts and other fertility problems, environmental endocrine disruption still plays a significant role behind things like the transgender craze. A lot of people experiencing gender dysphoria would probably benefit more from hormone supplimentation rather than cross sex hormone replacement. Unfortunately in many places, such as Illinois, it is easier for a male to be prescribed estrogen than testosterone.
This may contain some truth for some trans people, but why call it a craze if it does? There’s no point in estranging or punishing people who are either happy as they are (with an impulse to transition) or happy as they can be with a therapy. Similarly, being disrespectful would push more people away from having contact with other medical or social supports they may benefit from.
There would be nothing wrong with adding same-sex HRT to a list of common treatments for people found to need and desire it if this theory were to hold, but why enforce that there’s a right or wrong way to live for the small minority of people who are seriously affected by the issue you’re identifying?
We would also have to reccomend it before cross sex hormone treatment. I personally think it would be more effective as hormones necessarily have a greater effect on the mind and brain than the external body. The worst that could happen if same-sex HRT fails is that someone gets a little more dysphoria. But if cross sex hormone treatment fails to stop the dysphoria, and I believe it is more likely to again since the mind will be more quickly affected by estrogen than the body, the person may now be infertile, which is a massively depressing thing to realize.
I dunno. We've been through worse as far as environmental contaminants go. I'm more of the belief that low mortality rates and having children at older ages would be more likely to cause lower sperm counts, etc. The Romans made drinks in lead pots because the lead gave it a nice taste. About a century ago we had dirty factories and no concept of health or safety regs. In China and India its bad and that contributes a lot. Our consumption habits and microplastics can't be great though.
I am of the opinion that it is our low fat high carb diets that make us more vulnerable to environmental hormone pollution. Healthy animal fats are necessary for building the cholesterol we need to have healthy hormone levels. When we take away fats, we reduce our natural levels, that makes us more vulnerable to hormones from the environment, which leads to hormonal confusion.
While spiteful mutant theory (the name given by Dr Edward Dutton to explain biological degeneration due to lower mortality rates since the industrial revolution) could indeed account for a lot of the fall in sperm counts and other fertility problems, environmental endocrine disruption still plays a significant role behind things like the transgender craze. A lot of people experiencing gender dysphoria would probably benefit more from hormone supplimentation rather than cross sex hormone replacement. Unfortunately in many places, such as Illinois, it is easier for a male to be prescribed estrogen than testosterone.
This may contain some truth for some trans people, but why call it a craze if it does? There’s no point in estranging or punishing people who are either happy as they are (with an impulse to transition) or happy as they can be with a therapy. Similarly, being disrespectful would push more people away from having contact with other medical or social supports they may benefit from.
There would be nothing wrong with adding same-sex HRT to a list of common treatments for people found to need and desire it if this theory were to hold, but why enforce that there’s a right or wrong way to live for the small minority of people who are seriously affected by the issue you’re identifying?
We would also have to reccomend it before cross sex hormone treatment. I personally think it would be more effective as hormones necessarily have a greater effect on the mind and brain than the external body. The worst that could happen if same-sex HRT fails is that someone gets a little more dysphoria. But if cross sex hormone treatment fails to stop the dysphoria, and I believe it is more likely to again since the mind will be more quickly affected by estrogen than the body, the person may now be infertile, which is a massively depressing thing to realize.