Thursday, May 17, 2007


This is an old topic, but I feel like revisiting it. In my entry titled “Context,” I mentioned an article called “Soy is making kids gay” on World Net Daily, mostly as an intro. Kelly pointed out, and possibly rightfully so, that soy does cause problems. He asked: Does that "make" them gay? That's a bit inflammatory--typical of WND. But the real question is what impact are such hormones having that throw off the balance of a child's developmental hormones? What do you think? I honestly have no idea what to think. There’s been interesting research done on this topic, most of which I haven’t seen, or only seen the edges of. My problem isn’t actually with the idea that soy could be wrecking hormones in children, because if it is then we need to do something about it. My problem is with the massive amounts of intellectual dishonesty in the simple phrase, “Soy is making kids gay.” Soy is feminizing, and commonly leads to a decrease in the size of the penis, sexual confusion and homosexuality. That's why most of the medical (not socio-spiritual) blame for today's rise in homosexuality must fall upon the rise in soy formula and other soy products. First off, I want to know where the writer gets the information that there is a “rise in homosexuality.” I know of no statistical proof that homosexuality has been on the rise. I do know that homosexuality is now more accepted than in times past, but that does not mean it’s more common. However, the writer offers an indefensible statement as proof of his point. It’s a classic example of “begging the question.” I also want to know where the statistics come from that show soy reduces penis size and increases sexual confusion. Since the first sentence is connected to the second, it further reinforces my belief that he’s simply begging the question. Stating your hypothesis as proof does not credibility make. Furthermore, at no point does he address two key issues. First, gay men existed before soy formula. Where did they come from? Second, it doesn’t address the issue of lesbianism. Assuming the writer’s theory that estrogen causes sexual orientation is correct, wouldn’t giving massive amounts of extra estrogen to baby girls reduce the number of lesbians? Wouldn’t we be seeing a rise in the number of gay men and a concurrent reduction in the number of gay women? Then there’s the fact that the rest of the article wanders off in to issues like puberty, leukemia, obesity and infertility. That, too, might be the case and it might be something to look in to. It, however, has nothing to do with homosexuality. Over the course of an article entitled, “Soy is making kids ‘gay,’” the author devotes exactly two sentences to the idea. They’re also his two weakest sentences. This is what I like to call “intellectual dishonesty.” The fact is, there is no clear-cut explanation for why anyone is attracted to anyone else. And I mean that in every possible way. Historically speaking, I tend to be attracted to brunettes in the 5’4” to 5’8” range. Yet I within that broad category, there still aren’t that many girls I’ve been really attracted to for any number of reasons from physical appearance to facial features to personality. Meanwhile, I’ve been known to run in to the occasional 5’10” blonde who I find immensely attractive. I’ve also met girls I should be attracted to, yet am not because of personality issues or a simple feeling that she just isn’t that interesting to me. Meanwhile, for the life of me I have no idea why Angelina Jolie is considered the hottest woman on the planet, nor do I understand why anyone would be attracted to Kirsten Dunst. It’s simply a matter of preference. There's a mechanism in there somewhere that has to do with psychology, personal history, genetics and hormones. I assume that if one of those things were changed, I might have a different opinion of Ms. Jolie. I think it would take a lot more than that to cause me to throw off the idea of being attracted to a Ms. at all. And this is the problem I have with assertions such as the ones in the article. There is no binary “I prefer girls/I prefer boys.” I am heterosexual, but that doesn’t mean I like “girls.” That means I like certain girls. If I can’t even figure out why someone would think Angelina Jolie is hot, I doubt I can understand why Orlando Bloom is, either. Moreover, I highly doubt adding lots of soy to my diet will change that.


Anonymous said...

Soy makes you gay? Hmm, wouldn't the Japanese be a coast-to-coast nation of flamers if that was the case? They were liking soy before it was cool.


Kelly Reed said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Kelly Reed said...


You gave yourself some research avenues for childhood conditions.

Some that I have seen referred to is increased incidence in:

undescended testicles

the "hole" being in the wrong place (I can't remember what that's called)

There are a few other infant/child conditions that were mentioned but I cannot remember... it's been a while.

However, medical tracking should be able to provide some of that information.

As for girls, the effect of increased estrogen mimics in their systems have led to an earlier onset of pubescent development--breasts, pubic hair and first periods (for some as young as 7). Not that it never happened before, but if there is a statistically significant pattern of increase... what's the cause?

That also should be easy to research. I will leave that endeavor to you!!!! Let me know what you find.


Kelly Reed said...

I forgot to add...

Many of these conditions would be from too much estrogen en eutero--during fetal development.

After birth, many are choosing soy milk formulas over other formulas regardless of whether their children are allergic to the others.

Really, I think it's all a bunch of agricultural propaganda from Big Corn & Big Whole Wheat (haven't you noticed that all cereals are now practically required to be whole wheat?) Where's my freedom to eat all the nasty lard laced bad for me food I want? Soy, we don't need no stinking soy?