Reproductive choice or environmentalism? How does a progressive mind choose between the two? Another news story about the effects of hormones on males:

Half the male fish in British lowland rivers have been found to be developing eggs in their testes; in some stretches all male roaches have been found to be changing sex in this way. Female hormones – largely from the contraceptive pills which pass unaltered through sewage treatment – are partly responsible, while more than three-quarters of sewage works have been found also to be discharging demasculinising man-made chemicals. Feminising effects have now been discovered in a host of freshwater fish species as far away as Japan and Benin, in Africa, and in sea fish in the North Sea, the Mediterranean, Osaka Bay in Japan and Puget Sound on the US west coast.

There are many bad things in the environment besides female hormones from contraceptive pills. If you read the whole story, you’ll find lots to be afraid of. But my question remains: If the choice is between continuing the use the Pill and demasculinizing fish, which one will we choose?

______________________________

Andrea corrects Brigitte: Oh dear, Brigitte, you should know this by now. “Women’s rights”, especially “women’s reproductive rights”, no matter how broadly or narrowly defined are THE trump card. Of course they win. The fish don’t stand a chance. (Unless this damages female fish too. In which case, this remains an open question. Hmmmm.)

______________________________

Rebecca is enlightened enough to realize there is no problem, since gender is a social construct: if the fish were secure in their own identity and not marginalized by a phallocentric hegemonistic culture, they would not mind feminising effects.