Preposterous Theory of the Week: Healthfood makes kids gay
Column: “Soy is making kids ‘gay’” by Jim Rutz of World Net Daily News
WND must have some really low standards for their columnists. I came across the above article through Newsvine and was absolutely flabbergasted.
Rutz’s theory reeks of conservative propaganda spouted by someone who takes information he only vaguely understands and uses it to support his own bigotry. While it is true that soy products contain estrogen, there is nothing to support that it causes homosexuality or “feminizing” of men who eat them.
Rutz notably fails to quote from a medical source to support his argument, merely referring to generalizations that he spins to his own ends. In searching for any medical reasons for his arguments, I found the opposite.
The official stance of the American Psychological Society is that there is no defineable single cause for homosexuality, and that it is likely a combination of biological, genetic, and environmental factors.
Rutz says that:
“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.”
And yet, the APS states that there is no evidence for a rise in homosexuality. Rather, there is a rise in people willing to admit they are homosexual:
“Despite what some people claim, there is no evidence that society’s greater acceptance of homosexuality results in more people having a homosexual sexual orientation. The greater numbers of people identifying as homosexual are a result of fewer people fighting their homosexual feelings while attempting to live heterosexual lives.” (Emphasis added)
Rutz is depending upon the gullability of his readers, many of whom, I’m sure, will be happy to find something to blame for homosexuality and someone who will tell them that it is preventable or a choice, when the official medical stance is that it is not.
It is interesting how Rutz forgets those societies which existed prior to the advent of the soybean which accepted homosexuality as normal and even welcomed it. The Greeks are a prime example. Particularly in the upper classes, homosexuality was considered normal, and was even regarded as a method of social advancement. Young men would often apprentice to older men, who would take them in return for sexual favors. And could anyone forget the Sacred Band of Thebes? They certainly weren’t turned gay by soy products.
And what would Mr. Rutz use to explain homosexuality as it exists in nature? Are the Bonobo chimps fed soybeans? Have they been given estrogen shots?
Recent Comments