With this rhetorical stroke, he blithely dismisses the fact that people were gay before the first American ever ingested soy in any form. Instead he asserts a rise in homosexuality. The fact is that there aren't more gay people now than there were when Kinsey did his ground breaking research (which was also well before the widespread adoption of baby formula). Yes, it seems that way now that they are "out," but the numbers have never changed. The rise in homosexuality has been perfectly matched by the decline in spinsters, maiden aunts, confirmed bachelors, disinterested husbands, frigid women, particular friends, and all the other euphemisms for gays. Sadly these endearing terms of yesteryear are casualties of perfidious soy, which must take the blame. Soy, which is introduced to our babies in their bottles. Note again the linking of bottle feeding with homosexuality. The only alternative of course, is breast feeding.
Homosexuals often argue that their homosexuality is inborn because "I can't remember a time when I wasn't homosexual." No, homosexuality is always deviant.
And now for a moment of pure right wing illogic and fact twisting gay bashing, "Gays often argue that their homosexuality"...
An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition. A disagreement, which indicates that there are facts in dispute is often called an argument in our sloppy usage of language. Gays do not argue their homosexuality; it is a premise. A solid fact like the firmness of the earth and the blueness of the sky. It is the beginning point. By making his statement that gays argue the fundamental underlying fact of their gayness, he dismisses the single fact of being gay - which is sexual attraction to one's own sex - and substitutes his negation premise "No, homosexuality is always deviant." Which, depending on what we are talking about, may or may not be correct usage of that term, but in this case is wholly immaterial. The issue isn't whether homosexuality is or is not "deviant." That is a classic right wing rhetorical substitution. Basically it means that they aren't willing to talk about anything but their own point of view and they will only accept facts that they themselves present.
Being gay isn't about having better access to your emotions, it isn't about having a small dick or abnormal libido, it isn't about not being able to get girls. Dominating mothers, milquetoast fathers, and bottle feeding aren't to "blame." Gay men are not attracted to men because they are womanly in body, mind, or spirit. Gay men are sexually attracted to men. They like having male bodies, maybe more than straight men do. Drag queens do not emulate women, they parody women. Gay men are gay because they like having sex with men. Period, end of story. That is the one and only defining characteristic of gay men.
What young people deride as being "so gay," what the right wing loves to bash, what the far right continually misinterprets - exactly like this idiot does - is that the American gay social construct, the lifestyle of gay men, the Gay culture, etc., and being gay are completely different things.
What they don't get is that the gay lifestyle they hate is uniquely American. Made in America by American gay men. Gayness - that intrinsic thing that defines some men as being gay - is about wanting to have sex with men. Strip away the social conventions - the lifestyle - and the man underneath still wants to have sex with men. He's still gay.
Do take note that whenever he refers to GAY, he really only talks about gay men. There are 4 reasons: A) because lesbians, as women, aren't as threatening to homophobes, B) because lesbians don't have an identifiable lifestyle, C) because its men, and their precious manhood, that are under attack. Women are only mentioned to keep it from being so obvious that this is really an anti-feminist diatribe disguised as gay bashing, D) lesbians are hot. This makes it hard for them to be a target of sexually motivated misogyny.
But now many of them can truthfully say that they can't remember a time when excess estrogen wasn't influencing them.
Finally we're reassured. It's OK. It isn't the poor deluded gay person's fault. It's just the soy talking.
Doctors used to hope soy would reduce hot flashes, prevent cancer and heart disease, and save millions in the Third World from starvation. That was before they knew much about long-term soy use. Now we know it's a classic example of a cure that's worse than the disease. For example, if your baby gets colic from cow's milk, do you switch him to soy milk? Don't even think about it. His phytoestrogen level will jump to 20 times normal. If he is a she, brace yourself for watching her reach menarche as young as seven, robbing her of years of childhood. If he is a boy, it's far worse: He may not reach puberty till much later than normal.
OK, let's dismiss any budding objections to the widespread use of soy as a staple food in other parts of the world. Let's really not pay any attention to the far eastern cultures where soy makes up a vital part of the diet and has done for thousands of years. Perhaps it is because their girls reaching menarche at 7 that there are as many Chinese as all the other peoples of the world combined? Of course the boys there are all so short because they don't reach puberty until they are in their late teens (far worse!)? What the heck is long-term soy use, if not as dietary staple for centuries? Are far eastern peoples all gay? The pure fact is that soybeans are... BEANS. All beans and members of the bean family contain the same phytoestrogens. Your pot of chili, Boston baked beans, green beans, string beans, black-eyed peas, lima beans, etc., etc., etc., all have isoflavones - what this guy is prefers to call phytoestrogens, because it sounds alarming. Estrogen makes women. Women are bad. Estrogen is bad.
The fact is that the isoflavones do produce hormone-like reactions in animals, and too much of anything is bad for you. Of course beans have been a staple of American diets since there's been an America, so we have to blame it on soybeans - a menace from Communist China.
Now here is the part that they really don't want to hear. Yes, estrogen levels are up in Americans, but it's because of the COW MILK, not soy. Giant corporate dairy producers have been using hormones to increase their cows' production for years now. Animal estrogens just exactly like ours that do exactly what our hormones do, not plant molecules that act rather like actual hormones.
But remember that all this alarmist talk is to link American's homophobia and their conflicted distrust of, and faith in, "modern medicine" to the bogeyman of soy baby formula so that women will be returned to their historical powerless condition as slaves to procreation and breast feeding.
Next, he is going to go on and on about the supposed health detriment posed by soy. The following is a series of unsupported statements, rhetorical questions, ad appeals to unnamed authorities which ensure that the fear mongering touches as many health problems as possible, since polling indicates that health is a particular America obsession. We have: heart troubles, obesity, shrinking testicles, infertility, enlarged wombs, childhood leukemia, cancer, especially breast cancer, all ending with another appeal to authority, this time with foreign governments (which are well known to be better than ours!) "cracking down hard on soy" in unspecified ways.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
