Rational Soyophobia

Those who think that the analogies I often draw between sexuality choices and food choices are misplaced ought to consider the scientific evidence that “Soy is making kids ‘gay’“:

Soy is feminizing, and commonly leads to a decrease in the size of the penis, sexual confusion and homosexuality. That’s why most of the medical (not socio-spiritual) blame for today’s rise in homosexuality must fall upon the rise in soy formula and other soy products. (Most babies are bottle-fed during some part of their infancy, and one-fourth of them are getting soy milk!) 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. But now many of them can truthfully say that they can’t remember a time when excess estrogen wasn’t influencing them.

While it’s nice to see such a neat and tidy conflation of my analogy, does this scientific news really change the nature of the debate? Even assuming the scientists are correct about soy as the real cause of homosexuality, doesn’t this still means sexuality is a choice? People can choose not to eat soy products, and thus, are free to not choose homosexuality.
Meanwhile, the tofu based cultures like the Chinese will die out, while the stronger meat and milk-based Westerners will prevail.
Seen this way, soyophobia becomes completely rational, as there is no reason why anyone should be forced to become gay if he does not want to, and if avoiding soy avoids being gay, then avoiding soy is a rational form of bigotry. (And really no different than refusing to participate in homosexual conduct.)
Maybe the bottom line is that we should love the sinner, but hate the soy.
AFTERTHOUGHT: Should this be called soy-based sin? Or sin-based soy?