Hacker News Reader

Comment by sva_ | Hacker News Reader

It should be noted that this study is on rats. But I think it's reasonable to use such a model to suspect a similar effect on humans.

I've been following the impact that endocrine disruptors have on humans for a while now, and I'm quite frankly flabbergasted that there is so little research being done on it. It seems issues related to hormonal imbalances among people are an increasing phenomenon, and it appears reasonable to me to suspect that these chemicals may have an impact on humans, especially in the development stage.

Perhaps people are afraid to do such research, as some of the implications could be threatening to their careers, considering the fact that some people seem to make hormonal imbalances part of their identity? I'm honestly a bit hesitant to even post this comment as it may quickly get flagged by people who oppose having an open discussion about these things, but oh well.

View on HN

Male sperm counts have dropped by half in the last 5 decades. This is an existential level threat more relevant than climate change by a large factor, I don't understand why studying it is on a back burner.

> This is an existential level threat more relevant than climate change by a large factor

I agree, but the wealthy rulers that meet at Davos believe the opposite.

They generally believe this sort of thing is a double win. The population decreases and the population that remains becomes emasculated.

That's why Climate Change is a problem and Endocrine Disruptor proliferation is not. And you can be sure the wealthy like their all natural wool and glass bottles.

Well that doesn't seem very effective, since climate activists are the most anti-oil people you'll ever meet. You can't make endocrine-disrupting plastics without oil.

> They generally believe this sort of thing is a double win. The population decreases and the population that remains becomes emasculated.

The whole model of capitalism is based on more people consuming more stuff, so I don't see the Davos capitalists wanting this.

The Davos people are less capitalists and more socialist monopolists. The leverage government to entrench their own business.

At this point they are uber rich and believe most people are about to be completely replaced by machines. Thus, they want to get rid of the "Useless eaters."

I was so with you until the last paragraph. I don't think that's either relevant or constructive. I'd posit that you make your particular hormone balance a part of your identity so I'm confused why you're surprised others do. By all means we should be trying to make sure as many people as possible can live happy lives, but saying something like being gay is a hormone imbalance isn't that. I think there's a way you could phrase your point, if the conclusion ended up being true, but without evidence it comes across as just more of a phobia

I feel pretty out of the loop here; is there a strain of beliefs that sexuality is based on some hormone imbalance?

Sorry perhaps I should have been less cagey. They didn't specify but I suspect they meant trans people or maybe asexual people when they say some people make a hormone imbalance part of their identity, but really I think you see this sort of rhetoric about most marginalized identity groups. I've definitely heard the same about gay people in the past. The point is this sort of rhetoric divorced from evidence seems likely to be motivated by bias. Obviously it doesn't have to be, and the goal should always be trying to make sure people live happy lives, but even if this were true, chemicals are turning the people gay, trans, ect, that shouldn't actually invalidate their identities or for that matter mean we shouldn't ban the chemicals.

Side note: the historic record is clear that all these groups have existed before plastics so the most you might imagine is that the odds have gone up

>The point is this sort of rhetoric divorced from evidence seems likely to be motivated by bias

If trans people don't have hormone imbalances, why are they treated with hormone replacement... Obviously they have hormone imbalances the only question is how and why.

It's not hormone replacement therapy in the same sense as is used for relief of menopausal symptoms in women or symptoms of testosterone deficiency in men.

They don't have any actual hormone deficiency. Instead, they are using hormones for cosmetic purposes, to give themselves an artificially masculinized or feminized appearance in accordance with how they desire to look.

It's more akin to people with anorexia starving themselves because they hold a belief that they are obese and must be thinner.

I think you might be saying something quite different than I was complaining about. Saying trans people are trans because they had a hormone imbalance (presumably not enough hormones for the sex they were assigned at birth) isn't the same at all as saying trans people are trans because they didn't have enough hormones to develop as is typical for the gender they identify as. I'm not sure that conflating those two and saying both imply a hormone imbalance is useful, but if you want sure. The original comment was pretty clearly implying the former though right? It would be really weird if plastic was causing more xy people to develop with low estrogen levels than would have otherwise

I'm lost too. The original issue you had was with the idea that we can't study (and have a hard time even talking about, honestly) hormone imbalances as a problem when, because the "problem" has been present for long enough, people have normalized the problem and made it part of their identity.

I have no problem coexisting with trans people. I also find it acceptable to study whether hormone imbalances in humans may be caused by unnatural additions to our environment such as is the case with chemicals that disrupt our endocrine systems despite whether they lead to or are even relevant in said human identifying with some other gender or not. Do you share my stance or are you saying that assigning one balance as normal and other "balances" as irregular is harmful because it, in your mind, runs counter to the normalization of trans people in our society (which I might call out assumes that hormone imbalances are in fact responsible generally for cases of transgender individual).

What is confusing? What are you lost about? It sounds like you disagree with me and believe that being trans is likely caused by a hormone imbalance in the the first way I ascribed to the original commenter. That's something you're allowed to do, though there was a reason I tried to focus the conversation on the gay issue. The fact that that situation is more resolved makes the whole thing more obvious, but it doesn't have anything to do with my comment being confusing and I don't care to have the argument you seem to want to have

> It sounds like you disagree with me and believe that being trans is likely caused by a hormone imbalance in the the first way I ascribed to the original commenter.

No I don't agree with that characterization (I think being trans is more complicated than a hormone imbalance for some people and you can be perfectly "normal" balanced and still identify as whatever you want while also it being possible that some people experience gender dysphoria because of a hormone imbalance that can be corrected if desired). That's why I'm confused. I don't understand what stance you're taking. I don't understand why you're bringing gay into the mix. I'm genuinely confused because the way you worded things make in ambiguous whether you were supporting the comment you first responded to but didn't think last bit was the right way to approach the argument, or if you disagreed with the comment you were responding to because of the way the last part was worded. I'm not trying to have any argument just share my context because I'm actually confused.

Fair, sorry for that, feeling a tad defensive. Let me try to be clear, being while acknowledging there are things I have clear opinions on and thing I don't.

I had two big problems with the original comment. First the implication that identities based on hormones are weird in anyway (hormones make a big part of who we are), and the tone in which it was written. I also took some issue with the idea that it's likely the cause of some sort lgbtqness, because yes it's the sort of thing that gets expressed mostly by people who think other groups of people are in essence broken and it's tempting so we have seen it about all sorts of issues including the gay people.

I am not confident on the last note though, I can believe that some environment factor has contributed, but if so being careful about your language, and worried about falling into bias is the proper way to talk about it. Certainly some day we will have the ability to mold things like sexuality to our desire, but we'll still need to decide how we label such things

1. Not everyone agrees that trans people are trans because of hormone imbalances, at least not in the same way 2. Using language of damaged, or brokenness to express the idea of environmental influences where not warranted is wrong especially where it's used to imply that adult trans people are invalid in some way

They... don't? I thought trans people only use HRT if they're going through gender reassignment treatment? Or do they use them all the time?

> even if this were true, chemicals are turning the people gay, trans, ect, that shouldn't actually invalidate their identities or for that matter mean we shouldn't ban the chemicals

I think given the existence of detransitioners (https://reddit.com/r/detrans), there's a strong case to be made in support of rigorous research studying these links. Regardless of anyone's innate identity (born a X in a X's body), it's very plausible that detransitioners are examples of hormonal effects (TFA is one of many articles that talks of lifelong effects of hormonal imbalances in the womb) that were incorrectly interpreted as an essentialist, innate thing.

Why would it be based on an imbalance? The way we interact with other persons is definitely informed by our hormonal makeup, regardless of whether that makeup is temporary, permanent, balanced, or unbalanced.

Yes, exactly, but imbalance is in the eye of the beholder

Think the keyword here is transgender people.

>Perhaps people are afraid to do such research, as some of the implications could be threatening to their careers, considering the fact that some people seem to make hormonal imbalances part of their identity? I'm honestly a bit hesitant to even post this comment as it may quickly get flagged by people who oppose having an open discussion about these things, but oh well.

I would like to remind you that 90% of people in real life are not on either extreme of the political spectrum. The news channels get money by dramatizing everything, don't forget their motivation. I am pretty sure if there were interested researchers with enough funding and a chance to have media pick it up it would (likely) be done. My guess is that there is too little research and not enough publicity.

The 90% have less than 90% influence. If you are a researcher, you don't need 51% of people against you to get kicked out. 5% of very vocal opponents and 95% indifferent is all it takes.

>I'm quite frankly flabbergasted

Prepare to be flabbergasted an order of magnitude more when you find out that vaccine Adjuvants like aluminum, in the form that is being used in vaccines, has never been evaluated for safe use in humans. Yes, the vaccines containing them are studied, but the thing in isolation, no.

People think that society at large values human life and well being. But at some point in your life, you are going to wake up to the realization that its highest priority is economic stability and growth, and individuals life and well being are not even on the map.

>I'm honestly a bit hesitant to even post this comment as it may quickly get flagged by people who oppose having an open discussion about these things, but oh well.

Well, you have company now.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com