Skip to content
News
Link copied to clipboard

Soy Vey

Ok, hands down, favorite post of the day:

Soy makes you gay.

World Net Daily, a conservative Christian site, ran a column yesterday by Jim Rutz called the Big Picture. It begins:

There's a slow poison out there that's severely damaging our children and threatening to tear apart our culture. The ironic part is, it's a "health food," one of our most popular.

Now, I'm a health-food guy, a fanatic who seldom allows anything into his kitchen unless it's organic. I state my bias here just so you'll know I'm not anti-health food.

The dangerous food I'm speaking of is soy. Soybean products are feminizing, and they're all over the place. You can hardly escape them anymore.

This "slow poison" is shrinking the size of the penis, he writes. Soy, he adds, commonly leads to sexual confusion and homosexuality. In fact, that explains today's "rise in homosexuality." Soy.

Oy.

He adds a p.s. Soy sauce is fine. Same with miso, natto and tempeh. But watch the tofu.

As you might guess, this post is getting around.

John Amato at Crooks and Liars worries, having just added a little soy milk to his coffee.

Andrew Sullivan at Time headlines his post Threatdown: Tofu!

The Raw Story takes  it seriously, seeking to debunk the under-lying science by linking an Atlantic article that showed homosexual men had more testosterone than non homosexual men.

The libertine Right Wing Nut House shares everything we wanted to know and more in a post titled, "Soy in the Boy Gives Him Curls Like a Girl:"

I'm waiting for the study which shows all these effects are reversed by cigarette smoking. That or living a dissolute lifestyle. Or maybe even taking a rabid interest in sports. The reason being, I was raised on soy milk myself and do not suffer any of the effects mentioned in the article. But I smoke, liked to party down in my youth, and have had a lifelong passion for baseball and football. I wonder if any of those activities saved my masculinity from a fate worse than death? The last time I looked, my penis was not stunted. On the contrary…

(brilliant artwork by People For the American Way)

marty
Posted 12/13/2006 08:55:53 AM
I knew something was up when my 3 year old son finished his glass of chocolate soy milk...then put on RENT and and danced around the room.

This is ridic.

What's next?  
I drank soymilk too
Posted 12/13/2006 09:26:25 AM
Yeah, that's pretty silly. Now can somebody explain to me the science that has proven gay people are born that way?
Chazz
Posted 12/13/2006 11:40:01 AM
uuuuggggghhh.  Days like today, it's really hard to tell people you're a Christian.  I swear, we're not ALL morons.
-----
COMMENT:
AUTHOR: Julia Danson



Posted 12/13/2006 11:54:08 AM
This is a case of taking a kernel of truth and running with it to an illogical end, which is the case in most Christian conservative "thinking". This is based on the pseudo-science of theology, where you take a preconceived end and twist and turn to find a path to that end, regardless of how illogical it is. If it has the veneer of logic, it`s good enough for them.I am transgendered, and I use soy as part of my feminizing regimen, because it does contain the steroidal "backbone" of estrogen. They`re known as phytoestrogens or SERMs (serum estrogen receptor modulators), and they can have a mild estrogenic effect. But what isn`t mentioned is that soy is merely the strongest phytoestrogen. Practically any plant that bears seeds has SERMs in it. Better give up all fruits and veggies, so you don`t become infected with gayness. Soy is far too weak to overcome the testosteone in the male body without an androgen blocker. 3 mlg. Estradiol (up to 1000 times stronger than soy) a day is not even enough to work without a blocker in many cases.If the xenophobic Christian right wing wants to attack a plant, try pomegranates and brown rice. They have real estrone (the 2nd strongest estrogen) in them. Or better yet, the alternative to soy milk: real milk. It`s so loaded with bovine estrogen, your 9 year old daughter will hit puberty.The fact is, I was transgendered when I was 4 years old, long before I ever even tasted soy. Sexual and gender identity (and I am straight, I like women as a man, and men as a woman) is hereditary, not environmental. As science proves this more and more, the Christian xenophobes have to stretch further and further to find something to demonize. It`s easier to fill pews and coffers with hate-mongering.
I drank soymilk too
Posted 12/13/2006 12:07:55 PM
So sexual and gender identity is hereditary and science is proving it more and more? I'm interested in hearing the scientific proof.
ALa
Posted 12/13/2006 12:19:44 PM
It's a shame this article had to "go there" with the gay connection because it detracts from the general points made about soy. The more I read and research, the more I am convinced this particular bean is not meant to be a daily staple in the human diet... (unless it's gone through a fermentation process like tempeh, miso, and soy sauce).
Julia Danson
Posted 12/13/2006 12:29:55 PM
No sweat. A TG `sister` I know was male all her life. Real macho: military duty and a cop. Suddenly in her mid 30s, she experiences a loss of testosterone, and starts feminizing naturally. Doctors are baffled until they take a chromosone test. She has the xx gene. She`s genetically female, yet has male sexual characteristics. My case: I`m right~brain (female) dominant. I score extremely high on verbal skills testing, and decidedly mediocre on math skills. I have the brain of a woman, but the body and hormones of a man. Other cases: The intersexed (hermaphrodites). If having 2 sets of genitals is not physical proof that changes can happen to a fetus in-vitro, then you cannot be convinced that the world isn`t flat either. In a recent study, evidence has been shown that a mother`s body will `reject` a male fetus as foreign and produce antibodies. These antibodies have shown up in gay males. No specific studies have been done with TGs and and antibodies as far as I know, but it`s a much smaller logical leap than being converted to gayness or TGism, in light of overwhelming physical proof. 
Julia Danson
Posted 12/13/2006 01:10:39 PM
Note: I was imprecise. I should have said "genetic" instead of "hereditary". 
I drank soymilk too
Posted 12/13/2006 01:24:46 PM
Thanks. That's all very interesting information, but it doesn't even come close to proving that attraction to same-sex individuals is hereditary. Physical characteristics (like having both male and female genitalia) are fairly uncommon and can't be taken as generalized proof that homosexuality can't, under any circumstances, have psychological origins. I'm not accusing you of anything, you just happened to reply to my post (thanks), but I think that making sweeping generalizations about the causes of homosexuality, as well as making it into the huge political point of contention it is now, is doing a great disservice to gay people. It is a very personal and complex issue that each individual should be left to sort out with their family and any other person they choose to place confidence in. In case you're wondering, I think both sides of the political aisle are, at least to some extent, guilty of perpetuating this situation.

Ok, that's my soapbox :-)
I drank soymilk too
Posted 12/13/2006 01:25:52 PM
Whether the argument is that it's genetic or hereditary, I stand by my arguments.
Julia Danson
Posted 12/13/2006 01:53:19 PM
Well, I was replying to the reporting on this right~wing head~case, not your post. Then you asked me a question, so I answered with evidence. I am speaking more from a transgender viewpoint than a gay viewpoint, but that just points out how far off the mark this guy is, equating gender identity with sexual identity. They have no more to do wih each other than the fact that people have sex. I will agree there can be environmental factors like child abuse that could lead to homosexuality; but since that result is inconsistent, there may be a genetic factor combining with it. I`ve painted TGism and homosexuality with such a broad brush, because in my experiences with many thousands of GBLTs, I found every one of us has our own story to tell. There is no one reason for us being who we are, whether it`s genetic or environmental. Intersexed people are only the most noticably visible example; we can also be different from the `norm` genetically, in our brains, or hormonally. There`s alot more involved than just outward physical characteristics.
Julia Danson
Posted 12/13/2006 02:23:30 PM
Actually, looking critically at your post, that makes no sense whatsoever. Saying it constitutes no proof is a non-statement. A simple denial is not an argument. Written like a true theologian. It IS evidence, and that`s all science can provide. "Proof" is a subjective term. The law of gravity isn`t proven, there`s just overwhelming evidence for it. Likewise, you have given no proof that that homosexuality or TGism is environmental. In fact,  a look at that theory proves so wildly inconsistent in evidence, that the only conlusion is it is NOT environmental solely. Unless you can come up with a good 3rd reason, that leaves genetics as the only viable option.
I drank soymilk too
Posted 12/13/2006 02:54:20 PM
I never said homosexuality couldn't have genetic causes, just that assuming that it does (especially as a sweeping generalization) with incomplete evidence is misguided. And, yes, I was differentiating between homosexuality and outward physical characteristics (which you seem to agree with).

Also, like I said, I'm not necessarily accusing you of generalizing (if anything, a good bit of what you've said makes sense -- it's the sweeping generalizations mixed in with the stuff that makes sense that I'm disagreeing with). My point is exactly the fact that there's no scientific proof (and that goes both ways). Until somebody can come up with some sort of test that will conclusively tell us the cause of any given individual's sexual orientation, gender identity, etc, it's counterproductive to assert that "it is NOT environmental solely" ... or that it is.

In short, I'm not necessarily advocating for either political extremist view of the issue, I'm objecting to the generalizing and politicizing of a personal issue.

You can also sort of say that I've gone off the topic of the original blog entry, but I just wanted to make a point, since whoever's writing this liberal blog is happy to bash some conservative extremist's ideas when liberal extremists have been engaging in the same kind of stuff. I'm just anti-political extremism that ignores and defies logic, is all ;-)
enrico
Posted 12/13/2006 03:17:03 PM
I've heard an unsubstantiated rumor that Jeff Garcia orders his 'Bucks caramel machiatos with Soy, extra shot, extra hot.
Julia Danson
Posted 12/13/2006 03:44:07 PM
Again, there is no "proof", only evidence. Science isn`t about Answers; it`s about Questions, and if you should come up with an answer, bonus. Theology is about Answers (whether they are right or wrong). Simple doubt~mongering isn`t enough. Bring actual evidence to the table as I have done. The most current evidence suggests a strong genetic link.As for the "politization"of the debate, the tone was clearly set by the clearly illogical rantings of Jim Rutz. Opposing viewpoints are merely being represented.  Rutz` intent (as evidenced by the flawed logic) was to solely create hyperbole and histrionics. Factually debunking such rubbish is not part of any political agenda, it is just factually deconstructing nonsense.                   
I drank soymilk too
Posted 12/13/2006 04:15:47 PM
I fail to see how your argument of proof vs. evidence vs. theology makes anything I said wrong. I don't even know where the theology came from... unless you're resorting to the common extremist tactic of trying to paint me as an extremist from the opposite side simply because I disagree with you ;-)

As for the "tone" of the debate, it was set long before Rutz wrote that article. Factual support for an opposing viewpoint that you support is just as important as factual debunking of one that doesn't hold water.
I drank soymilk too
Posted 12/13/2006 04:27:46 PM
P.S. While you appear to have factually debunked the argument in the article (assuming your facts are correct), the original blog entry didn't really do that. It merely ridiculed it, seemingly based on its source.
Julia Danson
Posted 12/14/2006 03:08:06 AM
OK, we can agree that the tone was set long before Rutz` article :)It is in exactly that context that I am taking his statements. Since his assertions are factually unsupportable, it`s clear that he is simply trying to muddy the waters in a losing battle. My 1st post was a factual deconstruction of Rutz` assertions about soy. Soy is steroidally similar to estrogen, but it would take large (maybe toxic) amounts consumed daily over months to achieve a feminizing affect in the typical sexually functional male.  He equated feminizing with homosexuality, not bothering to explain how there are very masculine gay men and effeminate straight guys out there, or mentioning that by his theory soy would make all butch lesbians straight. Yes, I did ridicule Rutz` bizarre theories and the highly flawed logic underpinning them. That`s because his ideas are factually ridiculous. It`s hard to believe anyone who comes up with theories with such huge holes and does it for a living is really that stupid. Therefore, he can only be fanning the flames of hatred to promote his own agenda. I consider that an all~out broadside in a cultural war that the right wing has been steadily losing simply because their case has no ground to stand on. Now people like Rutz are just trying to fabricate ground to stand on. I brought up proof vs evidence because you keep demanding unattainable proof in some lame neocon troll attempt to create doubt, when evidence states that environment or `lifestyle choice` cannot possibly be a sole or main reason for sexual or gender identity. If there is genetic or biological cause, then all those preachers on their pulpit can`t proclaim what evil sinners GBLTs are for being how they were born; without looking like some pretty evil sinners themselves. But then that would mean that the Bible is (gasp!) wrong. What a quandry. The only answer for religion is to lie and muddy the waters. But isn`t Satan the master of deception? You`ve got to really wonder what kind of god these people are worshipping at that point.
I drank soymilk too
Posted 12/14/2006 09:33:24 AM
I agree with your post, except for the part where you called me a "neocon troll" and accused me of trying to "create doubt." The fact is that I'm not neocon and the doubt exists, whether you choose to acknowledge it or not. None of the evidence you've provided convinces me, without a doubt, of the sweeping generalizations made by "activists." Regardless of what words and terminology you choose to use, and how you define them, this translates into "doubt," as I know it to be defined.

I can't discount the possibility that homosexuality has, or can have, genetic causes. In the same vein, you shouldn't discount the possibility that it has, or can have, psychological causes. There may also be cases where it's a combination of the two. It's a pretty complex issue that we are nowhere near having a full understanding of.

I think it's disturbing that, while homosexuals are supposed to have support from family and friends when they "come out," there's no such requirement for when/if they should decide to go back. When "gay activists" hear about something like this, they shake their heads sadly, or even ridicule them. I think it's only fair that people should receive support from those close to them (as well as "activists" who claim to be trying to help them), regardless of what they happen to be going through. People shouldn't let their political beliefs get in the way of being there for people they care about.

I think this is a pretty logical way of thinking, and it's pretty disturbing that it somehow makes me a "neocon troll."
Julia Danson
Posted 12/14/2006 12:17:16 PM
I didn`t call you anything, I merely said it was a neocon troll attempt because you are using a passive~aggressive tactic neocon trolls on message boards frequently use. You consistently say you agree, then proceed to disagree, while inserting unsubstantiated doubts. That`s a pretty deceitful thing to do. The code words only neocons use is another dead give~away. "Extremist", "activst". You are not even remotely as neutral as you are pretending to be. Funny how a guilty conscience gives itself away. I can make "sweeping generalizations", because generally, they are true. OK, we agree that child sexual abuse may be linked to sexually identity, but that is as a tiny of a percentage of the whole as the intersexed people that you so dismissively swept aside when presented with irrefutable physical evidence. What other environmental factors do  you suggest? You reject an overwhelming body of evidence with no plausible reason, just saying it`s not some subjective `proof`. Fact: MRIs and EEGs of gay male brains indisputably show their brains function more like a woman`s than a man`s. Evidence of antibodies in gay males and not straight males have been found. You dismissed the intersexed as statistically insignificant, without even stating what percentage they represent within the TG community. You  make a bizarre statement about support for "going back". Why would people need support for going from a marginalized, demonized group to the `mainstream`? Classic passive~aggressive Christian martyrdom. You clearly show your agenda, and it`s as evil, deceitful, and pernicious as what Jim Rutz wrote. So, are you a clergy person? Are you very religious? Is your church involved in "converting" GLBTs? Do you swear on the Bible to answer truthfully, or freely give your soul to Satan, the master of deception? What is your whole point of saying some miniscule % of gays are that way because of environmental factors? What does it matter if they are? 
I drank soymilk too
Posted 12/14/2006 01:46:25 PM
Ok, we're getting into name-calling territory here. I made my point. Anyone reading can take it as they may.