3 ms·

Is... is this about trans people? Am I understanding you correctly? Are you suggesting a causal relationship between the use of PFAS and the visibility of trans

Is... is this about trans people? Am I understanding you correctly? Are you suggesting a causal relationship between the use of PFAS and the visibility of trans people in society?

zug_zug 3y ago
This shouldn't be dismissed out of hand, and I say that as a queer person myself. It obviously shouldn't be presumed true until disproven either, but if/when it gets dismissed it should be for conclusive scientific reasons rather that fear of offending.
- thfuran 3y ago
  Is there any particular reason to entertain it? If I give you fifty wild ass guesses as to things it causes, we can be pretty sure that, upon further study, at least one of them is going to come back as a positive result ( p < 0.05 ). That doesn't really mean anything other than that we've probably wasted a bunch of time and money.
  - zug_zug 3y ago
    Well the main reason to entertain it is that that's how science works -- something isn't false until proven, it's unknown until studied. It's worth studying because if it's true we'd like to know it. Now is there any plausibility whatsoever? To my mind it definitely wouldn't be the weirdest scientific discovery of the last 20 years. Many of these chemicals are endocrine disruptors meaning they affect hormones. Some of these are so prevalent that we get exposed to them in-utero. And obviously sex hormones when the body is developing can impact one's development [1]. Some of these chemicals are essentially inescapable in our everyday life (BPA is even in the air at this point) but often at very low doses. So we don't know any direct link, but there's a lot we don't know. 1 - https://divisionofresearch.kaiserpermanente.org/in-utero-exposure-to-bpa-may-adversely-affect-male-genital-development/ https://divisionofresearch.kaiserpermanente.org/in-utero-exp...
sva_ 3y ago
No, I do not make claims of such a causal relationship in particular, since there is no direct evidence which would support such a hypothesis (so far). My thinking is, that in the past we've been able to detect industrial pollutants that are harmful to human health because they had clear detrimental effects, like asbestos which clearly causes cancer. Newer pollutants would probably be more subtle, because we can select out those which clearly cause harm. Agents that affect the endocrine system might currently slip under the radar, as we do not fully understand how different agents interact with it, and what the long-term repercussions are. Surely there are different aspects of our bodies that could be negatively affected by industrial pollutants, but I just have a personal hunch that the endocrine system might be one that is subtle enough that it could evade our investigations long enough that could cause accumulative harm before we really notice it. Hope that makes some sense.

Is... is this about trans people? Am I understanding you correctly? Are you suggesting a causal relationship between the use of PFAS and the visibility of trans people in society?

zug_zug 3y ago

This shouldn't be dismissed out of hand, and I say that as a queer person myself. It obviously shouldn't be presumed true until disproven either, but if/when it gets dismissed it should be for conclusive scientific reasons rather that fear of offending.

thfuran 3y ago
Is there any particular reason to entertain it? If I give you fifty wild ass guesses as to things it causes, we can be pretty sure that, upon further study, at least one of them is going to come back as a positive result ( p < 0.05 ). That doesn't really mean anything other than that we've probably wasted a bunch of time and money.
- zug_zug 3y ago
  Well the main reason to entertain it is that that's how science works -- something isn't false until proven, it's unknown until studied. It's worth studying because if it's true we'd like to know it. Now is there any plausibility whatsoever? To my mind it definitely wouldn't be the weirdest scientific discovery of the last 20 years. Many of these chemicals are endocrine disruptors meaning they affect hormones. Some of these are so prevalent that we get exposed to them in-utero. And obviously sex hormones when the body is developing can impact one's development [1]. Some of these chemicals are essentially inescapable in our everyday life (BPA is even in the air at this point) but often at very low doses. So we don't know any direct link, but there's a lot we don't know. 1 - https://divisionofresearch.kaiserpermanente.org/in-utero-exposure-to-bpa-may-adversely-affect-male-genital-development/ https://divisionofresearch.kaiserpermanente.org/in-utero-exp...

sva_ 3y ago

No, I do not make claims of such a causal relationship in particular, since there is no direct evidence which would support such a hypothesis (so far). My thinking is, that in the past we've been able to detect industrial pollutants that are harmful to human health because they had clear detrimental effects, like asbestos which clearly causes cancer. Newer pollutants would probably be more subtle, because we can select out those which clearly cause harm. Agents that affect the endocrine system might currently slip under the radar, as we do not fully understand how different agents interact with it, and what the long-term repercussions are. Surely there are different aspects of our bodies that could be negatively affected by industrial pollutants, but I just have a personal hunch that the endocrine system might be one that is subtle enough that it could evade our investigations long enough that could cause accumulative harm before we really notice it. Hope that makes some sense.