Disclaimer: I'll probably get flamed for this diary, and I'll probably deserve it. This post will contain crass political calculation of the worst kind. I have done my best to make it non-offensive, but I believe that many will find the idea at the core of it offensive in and of itself, and justifiably so.
The gist of it: exposure a specific class of pollutant at certain ages could plausibly effect the chances that a person will grow up to be a homosexual. Social conservatives, if they can be convinced of this, wouldn't stand for it. Hopefully convincing the social conservatives of this would damage the Republican coalition and help in the banning of said pollutants.
So, my asbestos underwear is on. You'll find the rest below the fold.
This particular piece of calculation starts with an issue close to Liberals' hearts, the environment. Like so many environmental issues, this one also has a close link to public health. Specifically, there are a lot of estrogen mimicking compounds from industrial production in the world around us (for example
bisphenol-A). Such compounds are tested for toxicity, found non-toxic, and thus their production is allowed. The problem is that they wreak havoc on both male and female development processes. Females hit puberty early. Males experience reduced fertility and other obvious physiological abnormalities. Obviously, this stuff is not good for human health but the story is the same as for so many others that those who care about the environment are all too familiar with, powerful interests and public apathy prevent action.
So, how does this become a wedge issue? The key lies in some mating behavior studies performed on lab rats. When male rats are denied a specific hormone at a specific stage in their youth (I don't recall if it was testosterone or not) their behavior as an adult is altered. Female rats in estrus exhibit a behavior called lordosis. The short description is that it is behavior, including arching of the back, that facilitates mating/mounting. The male rats in question exhibit this same behavior as adults instead of the mounting behavior expected. Even giving them the hormone later had no effect. The take home lesson is this: the level of different hormones in your body as you grow up can have permanent effects on you, including your instinctual behavior.
Therein lies the wedge issue. If we can get it in social conservatives' heads that hormone mimicking compounds could affect the sexual orientation of their children when they grow up they'll turn against their industrial bedfellows and crack the coalition. Let me stress that I do not know of any study anywhere showing any link between the presence of hormone mimicking chemicals at any stage in a person's life and their sexual orientation as an adult. Given the above, however, I find the idea of a link plausible to the point that I would be surprised if there weren't one. The effect, if it exists, would likely be small. It would be enough, though. Could you imagine the reaction of some homophobic fundamentalist at hearing that industries are producing chemicals that could make their children grow up to be gay? It would play right into the fear and ignorance of homophobes. They naturally think that the number of homosexuals are increasing and threatening to take over the world. If they became convinced that their political allies were responsible, they'd rip the coalition apart and/or help get meaningful legislation passed that is beneficial to the environment.
Naturally, this would work best if an actual study were able to find such a link, but at the level of a whisper campaign plausibility should be enough. I must stress, though, that anyone wishing engaging in such a campaign should be
extremely careful not to demonize homosexuals any more than they already have been.
As a final note I would like to add that I do not believe that homosexuality is an unnatural byproduct of the industrial revolution. On the contrary, ancient Greece and bonobo chimps would be very different if homosexuality really were unnatural. It is possible, however, that pollutants are contributing to increasing the rate of homosexuality in the general population (are they increasing? I don't honestly know - it's tough to distinguish if the rate is increasing or if society is simply becoming more accepting, permitting people to come out of the closet). If it were that alone I wouldn't really care. The problem is that these chemicals have other side effects that are deleterious to human health, including possible links to various types of cancer. There's that and the fact that it can be used as a political weapon against conservatives.