I also suspect that this is a factor in the increasing number of transgender children. Particularly since there is an increased incidence in folks that are autistic. Yes, it is a combo of genetics and environmental and societal factors. But every so often I'd love to point out to conservative politicians that it isn't books and drag queens, it is plastic and other chemicals they refuse to regulate.
The increase in transgenderism is squarely on young people who are experimental and who are easily influenced by social convention or by rebellion against authority. Before Bruce Jenner became Katelyn Jenner, the whole trans debate wasn’t even in the public consciousness; now, a full 35% of young adults 18-25 identify as part of the Rainbow Gestapo. No sudden increase like that can be attributable to BPA since it’s been around for decades *without* a change in gender identities.
Query … what role, if any, do you believe social media, peer pressure, and propaganda have in directing agendas?
I worked in this space for a bit, and it was incredibly hard to leach out the BPA at a concentration enough to influence any cellular response (genotoxicity or endocrine disruption) in consumer items (food cans, water bottles, beverage bottles). Secondarily, while I would love to buy things in glass, here in my part of the US we do not have a recycling or take back scheme for glass bottles, the products in glass are more expensive (sometimes by a 3x factor) and the weight of the glass is not negligible, both by me carrying the item home, but also the transportation associated with getting the extra weight to the store. Again, this is one of those situations where the consumers need to make a choice that is exceedingly difficult to do because most of the companies are doing the same thing.
As an Autist I find the headline very troubling, as this reflects what in many Autistic communities is referred to as the pathology paradigm, which views Autism as an illness to be cured. The headline is in line with the vaccine scare around Autism, which has been thoroughly debunked, but unfortunately not before it took root in popular understanding and has caused harm to a large number of Autists.I understand that this article is not interested in the claim around Autism at all (which is fine, but then I would question the use of it in the headline) and I understand that not all have a deeper understanding of the contemporary Autism discourse (which again is fine, but then I would again question the use of it in the headline). The headline sits squarely within the Pathology Paradigm and I'll give the benefit of the doubt, I don't think that is intentionally done so and any harm was ment.The Autism communities, which are led by Autist, that I follow tend to subscribe to the Neurodiversity Paradigm, rather than the Pathology Paradigm. Dr. Nick Walker has written a beautiful short piece that lays out the difference and the harms, I would hope anyone that has read this otherwise excellent article, will also spend about 10-15min to get a more nuanced view on Autism.
Removing the incredibly strict definition set by Leo Kranner, will allow for more people to receive the diagnosis/self-realize, so we are merely catching up.
If you want to know more, I would suggest that you read Steve Silberman's excellent Neurotribes. It's a thick book, so if you don't have the time, you can start with his 2015 Wired article "Why are we still treating Autism like an epidemic?"
Direct answer to you question from the article: "CDC director Thomas Frieden ventured that the revised estimate almost certainly did not reflect an actual increase in incidence, framing the new number as a hopeful sign that more autistic children are being identified earlier in their lives"
It isn’t politically correct to even discuss this, but could BPA and other endocrine disrupters be behind the rise in people, especially younger people, identifying as LGBTQIA?, particularly in the rise of teenage girls identifying as transgender?
I also wonder why endocrine disrupters aren’t treated with the same urgency as other pollutants, particularly carbon dioxide. It seems that the biggest problem we face is CO2 emissions, when in fact we face other serious problems like endocrine disrupters. We know exactly what they do to fish and birds—imagine what they’re doing to us.
It's a common mistake to assume that just because two things are correlated, one must be causing the other. This can lead to making invalid inferences and drawing incorrect conclusions.
We are neither fish nor birds (I assume) therefore we can draw no conclusions from that. They also neither drink beer or eat vegetables from cans.
No, the reason why so many young people now identify as part of the rainbow coalition is because of (a) Bruce Jenner and (b) the media pushing propaganda on (c) gullible kids who want social acceptance.
I also suspect that this is a factor in the increasing number of transgender children. Particularly since there is an increased incidence in folks that are autistic. Yes, it is a combo of genetics and environmental and societal factors. But every so often I'd love to point out to conservative politicians that it isn't books and drag queens, it is plastic and other chemicals they refuse to regulate.
The increase in transgenderism is squarely on young people who are experimental and who are easily influenced by social convention or by rebellion against authority. Before Bruce Jenner became Katelyn Jenner, the whole trans debate wasn’t even in the public consciousness; now, a full 35% of young adults 18-25 identify as part of the Rainbow Gestapo. No sudden increase like that can be attributable to BPA since it’s been around for decades *without* a change in gender identities.
Query … what role, if any, do you believe social media, peer pressure, and propaganda have in directing agendas?
You could write an article about saltine crackers and some bonehead would figure out a way to link it to transgender issues... H8rs gonna h8
I worked in this space for a bit, and it was incredibly hard to leach out the BPA at a concentration enough to influence any cellular response (genotoxicity or endocrine disruption) in consumer items (food cans, water bottles, beverage bottles). Secondarily, while I would love to buy things in glass, here in my part of the US we do not have a recycling or take back scheme for glass bottles, the products in glass are more expensive (sometimes by a 3x factor) and the weight of the glass is not negligible, both by me carrying the item home, but also the transportation associated with getting the extra weight to the store. Again, this is one of those situations where the consumers need to make a choice that is exceedingly difficult to do because most of the companies are doing the same thing.
As an Autist I find the headline very troubling, as this reflects what in many Autistic communities is referred to as the pathology paradigm, which views Autism as an illness to be cured. The headline is in line with the vaccine scare around Autism, which has been thoroughly debunked, but unfortunately not before it took root in popular understanding and has caused harm to a large number of Autists.I understand that this article is not interested in the claim around Autism at all (which is fine, but then I would question the use of it in the headline) and I understand that not all have a deeper understanding of the contemporary Autism discourse (which again is fine, but then I would again question the use of it in the headline). The headline sits squarely within the Pathology Paradigm and I'll give the benefit of the doubt, I don't think that is intentionally done so and any harm was ment.The Autism communities, which are led by Autist, that I follow tend to subscribe to the Neurodiversity Paradigm, rather than the Pathology Paradigm. Dr. Nick Walker has written a beautiful short piece that lays out the difference and the harms, I would hope anyone that has read this otherwise excellent article, will also spend about 10-15min to get a more nuanced view on Autism.
My apologies if I offended. i do not have a deeper understanding and will read up!
Assuming autism is in fact part of the neurodiversity paradigm and NOT pathology paradigm, what explains the marked increase in diagnosed cases?
Removing the incredibly strict definition set by Leo Kranner, will allow for more people to receive the diagnosis/self-realize, so we are merely catching up.
If you want to know more, I would suggest that you read Steve Silberman's excellent Neurotribes. It's a thick book, so if you don't have the time, you can start with his 2015 Wired article "Why are we still treating Autism like an epidemic?"
Here, I did the work for you: https://www.wired.com/story/why-are-we-treating-autism-like-an-epidemic/
Direct answer to you question from the article: "CDC director Thomas Frieden ventured that the revised estimate almost certainly did not reflect an actual increase in incidence, framing the new number as a hopeful sign that more autistic children are being identified earlier in their lives"
Haven’t been able to stand the taste of beer from cans in decades, too many years of drinking draft or bottled beer.
People power. We need to use it more.
Popeye didn't eat spinach all the time- just on the occasions when he needed some help...
It isn’t politically correct to even discuss this, but could BPA and other endocrine disrupters be behind the rise in people, especially younger people, identifying as LGBTQIA?, particularly in the rise of teenage girls identifying as transgender?
I also wonder why endocrine disrupters aren’t treated with the same urgency as other pollutants, particularly carbon dioxide. It seems that the biggest problem we face is CO2 emissions, when in fact we face other serious problems like endocrine disrupters. We know exactly what they do to fish and birds—imagine what they’re doing to us.
lots of articles discussing this during the Nalgene scare.
No. Correlation does not prove causation
It's a common mistake to assume that just because two things are correlated, one must be causing the other. This can lead to making invalid inferences and drawing incorrect conclusions.
We are neither fish nor birds (I assume) therefore we can draw no conclusions from that. They also neither drink beer or eat vegetables from cans.
No, the reason why so many young people now identify as part of the rainbow coalition is because of (a) Bruce Jenner and (b) the media pushing propaganda on (c) gullible kids who want social acceptance.