Human Experimentation the Real Issue in Stopping “Transsexual” Boy’s Puberty
by Wesley J. Smith
I have worried before that stopping the normal onset of puberty in boys who believe they are girls, is a form of human experimentation–and on children, no less. And now another case has surfaced of an 11-year-old boy who is being kept medically from entering puberty. From the story:
The lesbian parents of an 11-year-old boy who is undergoing the process of becoming a girl last night defended the decision, claiming it was better for a child to have a sex change when young. Thomas Lobel, who now calls himself Tammy, is undergoing controversial hormone blocking treatment in Berkeley, California to stop him going through puberty as a boy. But Pauline Moreno and Debra Lobel warn that children with gender identity disorder forced to postpone transitioning could face a higher risk of suicide.
I don’t think the lesbianism of the parents should be the focus of this story at all, and in fact, I think it is being used by some as a way to sensationalize the issue. So, let’s not even get into it.
What matters is whether doctors should prevent puberty when there is no physiological indication that such hormones should be given medically, e.g. such as preventing early onset puberty. Time has reported that while there doesn’t seem to be much risk with bone density, and the process is reversible, there could be an impact on fertility. From the story:
Still, there is evidence that hormone blockers can cause infertility. Cheryl Sisk, the head of neuroscience at Michigan State University, who studies the impact of pubertal hormones on neural development, adds that it’s also too soon to know how delaying puberty plays into brain growth.
Gender-variant behavior in children usually begins between ages 2 and 4, according to Ken Zucker, a psychologist and head of the Gender Identity Service at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health in Toronto. The behavior is pronounced, broad in scope and continues over a lengthy period of time…Parents often wonder if their gender-variant kids will grow up to be transgender adults. Statistically speaking, the answer is no. “Between 85 percent and 90 percent of the (young) kids that we’ve seen don’t grow up and want to become the opposite sex. They grow up and are pretty happy in their own skin. It’s only a small minority that we’re seeing that are persisting into adolescence,” Zucker says. Studies suggest that the majority of gender-variant boys will grow up to be gay men, with experts putting the figure at anywhere from 70 percent to 95 percent. (About a third of the gender-variant girls in a small study cited by Zucker later identified as lesbian or bisexual.)
If that is true, is it really wise to interfere with the child’s biology?
Adding to my concern: It is my understanding that this approach has not been approved by the FDA. To me, that means it is experimental, meaning that it hasn’t gone through the usual safety and research processes leading to FDA approval, meaning it should be considered unethical to experiment on human beings in this manner. (This gets us into off label prescribing, which I also oppose, but let’s not get into that now.)
I am not discounting how difficult these situations can be. At the same time the roaring politics of this provocative issue seems weightier these days than the usual research procedures and safety routines. At the risk of being charged with all kinds of phobias and prejudices, I strongly believe we should not experiment on children in this manner.
Loading ...
Of course, it sure helps that the parents are lesbians: this is just one more example of the dysfunction of homosexuals!
Somehow, if physicians at the University of California at Berkeley are administering this program, I suspect there has been a little bit more than mere Frankensteinian “experimenting on children” going on.
I’d like to see some experiments done on people who are obsessed with other people’s love lives. Surely it’s high time the medical community can put a name on the syndrome, and create some reparative strategies.
“I don’t think the lesbianism of the parents should be the focus of this story at all, and in fact, I think it is being used by some as a way to sensationalize the issue. ”
If being gay makes you unfit to be a parent as many here have claimed, then it is entirely relevant. Its only irrelevant if that is a poisonous lie.
“And there is some indication that most children suspected of being transsexual “grow out of it.”
And just how many of these “grow out of it children” do you think would be serious enough about their desires they would consent to altering their body over it?
While it is true that gender non-conformity is normal among very young children they grow out of it well before they are eleven.
Also if you want the absolute right to decide on your child’s medical needs & treatment the you should leave these people alone. They are doing the best they can.
@ SEAN
This transgender medical issue occurs with more HETERO parents, than gay ones. It’s extremely important for medical science and how to address it to move FORWARD and progress and understand the situation much, much better in order to better serve the needs of the transgendered.
Period.
Gay parents are more likely TO understand it, get the RIGHT intervention for their child instead of the crude, less positive and ultimately unhelpful reactions the transgendered young person has had in the past.
The issue of gender BEGS understanding well beyond the physical and superficial. There is nothing to get hysterical about, but embracing the scientific response it requires.
This doesn’t mean that this little person won’t grow into a healthy, highly accomplished person.
Indeed, prejudice against the transgendered has fostered more unnecessary tragedy and created marginalized lives.
Well, why?
There is nothing worse than someone certain of what they think, but incredibly short on what there is to actually know.
The medical establishment cannot share your prejudice. Why should they?
They are OBLIGATED to engage this issue further, to understand it better, devise better and more advanced treatment.
It is healthier to be curious, to SEEK answers and understanding something that is mysterious, rather than deciding as you have, that you already know the answers. Regardless that you do.
@Roivas
You’re always certain that just being gay makes a person unfit to parent. That alone shows how little you know.
Being a fit parent isn’t bestowed on GROUPS.
It’s an INDIVIDUAL ability.
Heterosexuality doesn’t guarantee, nor is it in any way an indicator of the quality of parenting someone can have. Any more than homosexuality is.
Let alone gender being a qualification either.
Guess what happens in the real world historically when it comes to gender hasn’t clued you in?
Know the difference between religious dictation forcing inferior social status on a group, especially females and the non gender conforming rather than that such a group is actually inferior. There is a difference in what happens naturally as opposed to artificial gender based hierarchies being formed to place some members of our species in an impossible position and enforcing that position cruelly.
Like any other kind addict, those addicted to power over others have to first admit that’s what they do, before they can move forward and control their addiction.
“Treating these children with hormones does considerable harm and it compounds their confusion,” said Dr. Paul McHugh, University Distinguished Service Professor of Psychiatry at John Hopkins University.
McHugh said gender reassignment for children harkens back to the dark ages, when choir boys were castrated to retain their high-pitched voices. “It’s barbaric,” he said.
See http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,356592,00.html
If this were being done by fundamentalist parents for some religious reason or by an operatic family for musical reasons, there would be a huge outcry from child protection services. But this is San Francisco, with all that implies, so there are few if any negative moral judgments from the local press and community and the law is somnolent. Somewhere there is a father who abandoned or failed to acknowledge this child, setting the stage for this situation.
@Sean…
My post of course was meant as how the opposition thinks, not how you personally do. I reread your post and got a bit confused on which side of the fence you were speaking from. The last paragraph to your post is what made me realize I made a mistake.
As I get to know you and this thread better, as well as commenting AFTER I’ve had my coffee, perhaps I’ll be more alert.
Does anyone know why the author uses quotation marks around “transsexual”? It’s an accepted term.
Because she wants to imply there is something off or wrong about them, much in the same way she writes “homosexual ‘marriage.’ ” She’s just that kind of woman.
Roivas, my guess is that “Wesley” is a man’s name.
Oops. Took your name at top of post as meaning you authored it. My bad.
The statement still applies to him. And to you, posting the article with scare quoted word intact.
@Roivas
I guess you’re right. It’s just weird, because even when I talk about things that are inherently off or wrong, I don’t use quotation marks. I always get the impression that the quotes are meant to put a negative spin on the term, or to suggest that the concept in question does not exist. Like, people put “marriage” in quotes because they don’t think gay marriage exists (i.e., it’s not REAL marriage). But “transsexual” is not only accepted, but the only term to describe someone who changes sexes (that’s literally the word’s etymology, after all).
@Regan DuCasse
Friendly fire FTW! Don’t worry it happens to all of us (read: me).
I don’t think it wouldn’t be proper to edit someone else’s article.
The public should protect children’s fertility, not let parents and radical Transhumanists and Postgenderists treat a person’s fertility as if it was bad or worthless. They want to cause permanent harm, so that there are people who plead to be allowed to use experimental artificial gametes to reproduce as their “other” sex, and we feel sympathy for their plight and let them. But we need to stand firm and prohibit creating people by any means other than with unmodified natural gametes, which means with someone of the other sex (and sex needs to be defined in this context as the sex which people would be most likely to be able to reproduce as using their natural gametes, if they had them).
Is it proper by silence to condone the author’s mean spirited and snide jab at people by questioning their very existence?
[“Treating these children with hormones does considerable harm and it compounds their confusion,” said Dr. Paul McHugh, University Distinguished Service Professor of Psychiatry at John Hopkins University. ]
No one is suggesting this is not controversial, but it is not unsupported by competent medical professionals. Parent’s have the right to decide what is appropriate medical treatment for their child. They are not in Tijuana having baboon gonads implanted.
[If this were being done by fundamentalist parents for some religious reason or by an operatic family for musical reasons, there would be a huge outcry from child protection services.]
It is, however, being done at UC Berkeley for medical reasons and is pretty clearly not the same thing at. Unless you want to compare castrating a child to keep his soprano voice and treating a child’s testicular cancer.
@Regan DuCasse
“@ SEAN
It is healthier to be curious, to SEEK answers and understanding something that is mysterious, rather than deciding as you have, that you already know the answers.”
@Regan DuCasse
“@Roivas
You’re always certain that just being gay makes a person unfit to parent. That alone shows how little you know.”
Is anyone finding this as amusing as I am?
Regan, maybe you should switch to decaf.
“Is anyone finding this as amusing as I am?”
I fail to see the joke.
Roivas, it’s not my policy, nor should it be anyone’s, to make changes to someone’s article. Most of the articles on here you disagree with in one way or another. Move on, please.
@Roivas
Roivas, is posting on this site going toward college credit? Are you gathering information as required by a social science course?
For three days (October 8th – October 10) you posted 31 times!
10/8
5:51 am
5:54 am
5:48 am
5:56 am
5:57 am
6:00 am
6:02 am
6:04 am
6:06 am
2:58 am
10/9
6:07 am
6:09 am
6:16 am
5:25 pm
5:26 pm
5:33 pm
9:30 pm
9:41 pm
10/10
5:43 am
5:45 am
5:48 am
2:23 pm
2:37 pm
3:18 pm
3:27 pm
3:33 pm
5:35 pm
8:30 pm
9:37 pm
10:30 pm
@Anne
You have a point in there, sister? Read the entire of my original post. For decades and decades, the response to homosexuality and transgenderism has been barbaric and cruel. Castration, lobotomies, institutionalization, jail…and outright assault and violence in the street.
Too many people still refuse to see homosexuality as a normal variant of gender attraction, and still see transgenderism as a medical issue in which to be cruel in the workplace, discriminatory, hostile and violent.
And refuse to believe that either manifest in CHILDREN, hence it would contradict that a person CHOOSES their condition.
It’s been more and more helpful for society to know that children know they are gay or transgendered long before they might be able to articulate it.
But the real question is: why are such young people subjected to being isolated and set up for discrimination? Why include socio/political AND physical threat in the mix?
However some people want to define such conditions, since when is treating a person wrongly, unjustly or cruelly supposed to help anything? What justification is there for THAT?
We see all the time instances of medical intervention and experimentation on children all the time if the treatment is more effective in childhood than at any other period in their lives.
If someone were so concerned about such intervention being cruel or unnecessary, than what I want explained is a part of my aforementioned questions.
What social and medical benefit could possibly be derived from treating gays and the transgendered cruelly?
Threatening them with all civil and human rights ABUSES and denial unless they conform to whatever unrealistic and hypocritical standards they keep getting confronted with? THAT is preferable to the people of the Ruth Institute than this compassionate medical try out?
Explain how THAT is possible?
Excellent information here:
http://www.tradingmysorrows.com/
Some excellent information here too –
http://tinyurl.com/5vjveg3
http://tinyurl.com/5w233qg
http://tinyurl.com/3zsjtuo
People are people. Some regret their decisions some don’t.
Does Maggie Gallagher still believe that “if it is possible to change sex, then it is possible” and therefore (presumably) should be allowed? This is the WHOLE ISSUE. Are we going to allow people to reproduce with someone of the same sex or not? That is the same issue as whether we are going to let people “change sex” and reproduce as the other sex, with someone of their original sex. The technical challenge in same-sex reproduction is exactly the same as in transgender reproduction, and Maggie always seems to take the most radical libertarian position on these things, instead of pushing for a federal law that limits reproduction to a man and a woman using their unmodified gametes.
@Mont
“It is, however, being done at UC Berkeley for medical reasons and is pretty clearly not the same thing at. Unless you want to compare castrating a child to keep his soprano voice and treating a child’s testicular cancer.”
This child will likely be castrated, but there is no indication there is anything physically wrong with him, unless you want to compare his condition to having testicular cancer.
I assume you are opposed to castrating children to preserve their voices. If so, we are in agreement on that. May I ask why you are opposed to it?
It is easy enough to get this wrong at the expense of the patient, while the medical profession is financially enriched by this experimentation on a child.
http://www.theage.com.au/national/sexchange-clinic-got-it-wrong-20090530-br3u.html
http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/view/experimenting_with_childrens_sexual_identity
Interestingly, this last article cites a correlation between father-absent families lacking a male model and gender disphoria in boys.
@Regan DuCasse
“Read the entire of my original post.”
Maybe you should read a few posts yourself. Sean and Roivas are both on your side.
Don’t expect to find any more of my posts addressed to you. You obviously don’t read other people’s posts. Apparently Roivas doesn’t either.
It’s interesting to note that neither of you seem to feel the need to consider any perspective other than your own while you berate the rest of the world (even each other) for dismissing your concerns.
@Regan DuCasse
Yes, Regan.
Which is that, given your natural bigotry, prejudice, and constant insistence that you are always right and know all the answers, you are indulging in a hysterical case of projection.
Speaking of projection:
“It’s been more and more helpful for society to know that children know they are gay or transgendered long before they might be able to articulate it.”
Or, more precisely, you ascribe sexual or “gender dysphoria” motivations to behavior that was never seen as anything more than childish roleplaying.
Why? Because you are desperate. Rather than deal with the very real consequences that your obsession with sexualizing children and promiscuity have created, you need to have an excuse.
If you truly cared about the welfare of gay and lesbian children, Regan DuCasse, you would condemn the gay and lesbian community that you represent that annually infects thousands of them with HIV, condemning them to a life of drug dependency, disability, and death.
But you can’t and you won’t, because you don’t really care about childrens’ welfare; you’re just using that as an excuse to attack white people, religious people, and other people toward whom you are intolerant.
@Anne
Anne,
You should know that Regan is black, and is a confirmed racist.
She has in my presence supported and endorsed violent attacks on white people.
She has stated that any violence carried out by herself, gays, lesbians, or any other grievance groups is always justified.
Regan is here because she needs to rant and attack white people and peoples’ religious beliefs. There really is no other reason, nor does she provide any additional value to the conversation other than as an example of the deep, deep hatred and intolerance that she and those who support her practice and endorse.
I consider your perspective. I just reject it.
@North Dallas Thirty
Thanks for the heads up North Dallas. I have seen several of her posts and never been inclined to respond because her emotional and irrational tone pretty clearly indicate that she’s not actually here for discussion.
I was just enjoying the irony of watching her rant at two of her own, and (at least) one of them not even realizing it.
This has been one of my primary objectives: To highlight the fact that many proponents of the homosexual lifestyle are merely pursuing their agenda with more anger and emotion than rational consideration of any impact on society and with little or no consideration of the legitimate concerns raised by those opposed to the agenda.
[This child will likely be castrated, but there is no indication there is anything physically wrong with him, unless you want to compare his condition to having testicular cancer.]
Like testicular cancer this is a medically accepted treatment for a recognized medical problem. It has the benefit of being helpful to the patient and reversible. No one is going to castrate this child. The child may or may not choose gender reassignment surgery as an adult.
As to the articles, the first one deals with adults who are dissatisfied with the choices they made. All of them sought treatment and agreed with the diagnoses, no one was coerced, no one was a child.
The second article sites George Rekers, who has been completely discredited for his use of aversion therapy to treat gender nonconforming children. His testimony as an expert in numerous court cases has been dismissed as quackery and he was exposed recently as a closeted homosexual.
The other expert Paul McHugh, admits that the majority of gender reassignment patients are happy with the result, but is critical because patients still had problems. His complaint seems to me a small one. All people have problems, if the patients are happier then their ability to deal with their problems should be much improved.
I would also point out that reparative therapy, which is not a medically approved treatment and which has a large number of negative consequences is available to any adult who seeks it. Parents are allowed to seek this treatment for their gender nonconforming children.
This debate, like many others on this site, boils down to what rights parents may exercise over their children. Are those rights unlimited or not? Who mediates these disputes? And what place does the child or the child’s representative have in this process.
Hey Betsy, where’s that rule of decorum that the pro-SSMer’s keep hearing about?
Bob, what NDT said could very well be true. Why should I trash it?
@Anne
Yes, Anne.
I realized my mistake with Sean and Roivas. And when I could, acknowledged it.
Now, what’s YOUR point? What’s the point of YOUR statement?
@North Dallas Thirty
Wow.
NDT, you seem to be following me around, only to throw a libelous bomb.
Nothing to say about the subject at hand? Nothing to contribute to the issue regarding what transgender people have to deal with?
I admit I misread Sean and Roivas. I at least can and do admit a mistake when I realize it.
Now what’s YOUR excuse for what you’re doing?
@Roivas
Hey Roivas, I apologize for not getting your post clearly ( I blame a little sleep deprivation lately).
Hopefully, won’t happen again. When I scroll up and down too fast, sometimes I lose the place where I want to cut and paste or reply.
Fair?
NDT, since you’re SO convinced that I’m a racist that goes around threatening white people and children… and encourages the spread of AIDS, I will let you in on some of my background.
Especially my volunteer work and orgs that I work for that I’ve been very proud of.
ALL of which to background checks:
The Simon Weisenthal Center
AIDS Project LA, Eagle Academy Youth Educational Centers for LGBT Youth
And I’m a member of the SPLC and also GLAAD and PFLAG
As well as work in law enforcement as a forensic artist and forensic photographer.
Because THAT is what racist, hatemongering threatening people do. Participate in agencies like that.
See I witness everyday the depravity, cruelty, sociopathy and stupidity that harms people terribly everyday. And being passionate about it, is what makes me very effective at all that I do.
The only people that have a problem with me, have been very anti gay people in particular. The only people who spread vicious rumors and libel, have been the anti gay.
I’ve been accused of helping to spread AIDS for donating to and working for APLA.
I’ve been accused of helping pedophiles, ignoring completely working in law enforcement, but ONLY for supporting the equal treatment of gay people under the law.
So here is NDT accusing me of threatening white people and endorsing violence against them for the same reason.
And Anne is trying to give weight to the libel by making the same claim.
In the court of public opinion, no evidence or facts or witnesses are necessary.
Which is why this is the only place your advancing an opinion.
Anywhere else, wouldn’t happen.
You’ve been doing this a long time NDT.
Don’t YOU have a life somewhere?
NDT: just checked: when you follow a person for the purpose of spreading libel, unfounded information to ruin a reputation, it’s cyber stalking. You’re leaving quite a trail.
The people that matter know better, even if you don’t.
@Regan DuCasse
“Now, what’s YOUR point? What’s the point of YOUR statement?”
See post #31 (just one more post you didn’t bother to read).
@Regan DuCasse
Actually, Regan, if one wants to view “depravity, cruelty, sociopathy and stupidity”, one need only look at the statements made by individuals and organizations that you support, such as Evan Hurst and the organizations Truth Wins Out and Ex-Gay Watch, about (CONTENT WARNING) gay and lesbian people who dare to disagree with you or actually express their faith.
And as for your racist and violent tendencies, one need only observe your ringleader role in an attempt to browbeat and destroy a minority small-business owner in Los Angeles for the unpardonable sin of daring to make a donation with which you disagreed — and how you supported and endorsed the attempts by others to harass and attack her customers and ruin her business, even insinuating that gays and lesbians who disagreed with your attacks were traitors.
Incidentally, that thread also contains your rationalizations and support for threats and violence against white people.
So these examples demonstrate clearly that you support violence and online bullying against gay and lesbian people unless they do exactly what you say. You support violence and bullying against minority members who don’t do what you say. And if a transgender person dares to vote or express beliefs contrary to your own, they receive the same sort of hateful rhetoric and traitor/”Uncle Tom” rhetoric that all these organizations that you endorse and support pour on others for whom you supposedly “care”.
So there you have it. Your own words and the words of those you support, clearly laid out for all to see.
And if you would like to see the “I hope you die of AIDS” or “I hope you kill yourself” statements provided by your fellow commenters like Priya Lynn, I will be happy to oblige.
Mont
I don’t believe this drug treatment has been approved by the FDA. It is experimentation on a child, plain and simple, and IMHO a dangerous and ghastly experiment with a serious likelihood of further confusing the child.
The American Psychiatric Association still treats gender dysphoria, or gender-identity disorder, as a mental problem.
The surgical profession used to perform tens of thousands of lobotomies to treat mental problems. It was, sadly, a recognized procedure. Even the Soviet Union concluded that the procedure was “contrary to the principles of humanity” while the US was still performing the procedure in large numbers, such is our faith in the men in white lab coats.
I agree that parents have broad discretion in raising their children. But there are limits. Do you believe that parents have a right to use hormone blockers or ultimately castration on a child to keep his voice from changing, and if not, why not?
[I don’t believe this drug treatment has been approved by the FDA.]
You are mistaken. Gnrh agonists are commonly used to suppress puberty when it is medically necessary. And it is medically necessary for a variety of reasons. Short term it has no known side effects and as soon as you stop taking it puberty returns.
[ It is experimentation on a child, plain and simple, and IMHO a dangerous and ghastly experiment with a serious likelihood of further confusing the child. ]
How is this experimentation? There is a clear diagnostic and treatment protocol, proper follow-up is being done. This approach has been used in the Netherlands since 1987 with good results. The patients followed were happy with the treatment, generally healthy and tested within normal range psychologically. If you read the literature confused is not a word that applies.
[The surgical profession used to perform tens of thousands of lobotomies to treat mental problems. It was, sadly, a recognized procedure. Even the Soviet Union concluded that the procedure was “contrary to the principles of humanity” while the US was still performing the procedure in large numbers, such is our faith in the men in white lab coats.]
There were 100,000 lobotomies world wide about 40,000 in the US. But I am confused about your point. Doctors are evil? Medicine can’t be trusted? Don’t do what your Doctor recommends?
[Do you believe that parents have a right to use hormone blockers or ultimately castration on a child to keep his voice from changing, and if not, why not?]
No offence but this seems a bit strawmanish. You have made no convincing argument that these two situations are analogous. One is an accepted and supported treatment for a recognized illness and the other was the mutilation of boy children for the vanity of rich men.
Because keeping a child’s voice from changing is not a medically significant problem that warrants such a procedure. Allowing a child to keep their bodies in line with their mental gender is.
@North Dallas Thirty
Good point, Roivas. I’ve been reading about transgenderism for years, but it’s only recently been something the medical establishment is understanding in the preadolescent. They aren’t rushing to perform irreversible procedures before that time, but there is evidence that such a rush used to be routinely done on children born intersexed.
With intersexed children, doctors would ALWAYS prefer the child be transformed into a girl, because altering a young person to female was much easier. Disregarding what the inner gender or more usual tendencies would eventually be.
There was a cluster of intersexed children in the Dominican Republic. No one knew why there was a higher percentage in that location, but it was a good source for case studies.
One family with ten children, had four who were born intersexed. Rather than have any irreversible medical intervention, they preferred to see what the hormonal changes of adolescence would do.
In two cases, their gender identity aligned.
In the other two, it didn’t so there was eventual medical intervention.
But this all still begs my original question to those who are essentially anti gay: why is there discrimination? Why are the transgendered at risk of casual street violence and familial abandonment? Why is our society hostile and vicious towards transgendered individuals?
sorry Roivas, that should read
@Roivas.
@NDT:
You are proving nothing, but your preoccupation with defamation. It should be obvious to fair minded people, that the anti gay see conspiracies, and threat everywhere from those gay supportive where there is none.
As for calls for boycotts or some accountability to those who support discriminatory policies, it’s the right of every citizen to protest when it happens. The Montgomery Bus Co. for example wasn’t the victim during the boycotts of the 60’s in AL. It was the black patrons of that company who were.
The same is true for El Coyote. A business made wealthy and successful by gay patronage, and the owner/mngr betrayed her gay patrons by supporting discriminatory policies behind their backs, while claiming being a friend to gay people to their faces.
And apparently you haven’t checked back to see if any damage was actually done. Because the business is still there and thriving, despite a single noisy rally that passed by.
I’ll tell you now, as a year ago.
GET. OVER. IT!
And as is the pattern of those who have done nasty political things to gay people, it’s a matter of not wanting to be held accountable. Which is why Prop. 8’s defenders didn’t want to come to court, didn’t want to face the gay people they betray, nor even have a conversation about the damage done to that community.
And I’ll not apologize for having passion about something in which even children are dying. Yeah, I feel intensely for little guys like Carl Walker Hoover, all of eleven committing suicide because of anti gay bullying.
Yeah, I grieve when a 14 year old executes a gay kid in his classroom by shooting him twice in the back of the head in front of his peers.
Yeah, so?
The question is, why aren’t YOU?
Why don’t YOU care about children taking the stereotypes and anti gay hostility they’ve learned out on each other to the point of tormenting another child to death?
Where I work and volunteer, doesn’t have a problem with my activity. In fact…they don’t allow racists, people who have threatened others, nor those that support the abuse of others into their ranks.
My life’s work has been the prevention of abuse towards another and I know the difference between an ACTION and a REACTION.
The crusade of defamation by the anti gay and towards gay friendly supporters is in exactly your tactic here.
You entered gossiping, attacking and lying about me personally, NDT.
Mores the point: what do YOU do with your life in political action against discrimination and the abuse of young people for being gay?
Get a life. Seriously, you need to.
Okay, Regan and NDT, this is the last post I’ll allow from the two of you directed at each other. You can take your personal squabble elsewhere now, please.
Being gay doesn’t make anyone unfit to be a parent, but being a male certainly makes you an unfit mother, or being female you will never ever become a good father. Sorry, I didn’t make the rules.
LOL, good one Marty!
However, other than one’s sexual orientation, few of us have circumstances that remain permanent or so isolated from a transitional experience. From J. Ro Mo and the anti gay perspective, it’s as if they think that same sex couples have absolutely NO experience with someone of the opposite sex, so therefor their offspring won’t know what the opposite sex is or what that role is.
Motherhood and fatherhood are essentially lifelong roles until death, but few have control over if that mother and father WANT that role beyond the biological.
FRC’s position seems to be that there is no room for adapting to a gender based situation, even one that’s as common as same sex couple parenting or gay parents or single parenting. ONE of most natural and healthy factor of our species IS adaptability.
And still children can come out quite well under those types of circumstances. It isn’t that gender doesn’t matter. It’s that forcing gender to be ONLY certain things does. True, a woman can’t be a FATHER, but that doesn’t mean that she doesn’t have characteristics in common with a son. True also for a father and a daughter.
Especially if they are biologically related, sometimes certain gender based issues CROSS genders in a particular family.
Basing what one SHOULD do because of their gender alone, is as destructive as any other kind of prejudice that disqualifies or disrespects INDIVIDUAL character and abilities.
Not all females are competent nurturing mothers, just because they gestated their baby for nine months.
Not all males are incompetent in nurturing and being more sensitive because they didn’t.
Tradition tends to be euphemism for strict and artificially controlled gender ROLES, not individual ability.
And marriage between a man and a woman was legally more essential to be strictly enforced when women held the inferior, more subjugated role in a marriage. She wasn’t autonomous and had to vow to obey her husband and legally she had little recourse or protection, nor did the children.
Now, because marriage laws are more balanced and fair between the genders, gender itself has progressed as said, to now ‘becoming a union of equals’.
Meaning, that same sex marriage is the NEXT progressive level to where marriage is more EGALITARIAN than ever, and the tradition lies only in that it’s supported by the government as a means for the couple to be independent, and primary custody of each other.
It would be fair to see same sex marriage as progress. Coexistence of other types of COUPLES are accepted all the time within the same basic structure of marriage that’s been well established for at least 40 years.
And marriage is independent of children.
But even if all children had a man and woman conceive them, obviously not all their children had the luxury of that man and woman giving them a decent home. And with the sad realities of domestic violence, addiction, poverty, divorce and adultery still looming very large to imperil marriages, family and children: a gay couple getting married or parenting is hardly a PROBLEM.
@Marty
You’re right! Men cannot be mothers and women cannot be fathers.
Also, having a strong tendency toward any form of sinful behavior does not make someone unfit to be a parent, but acting on that tendency can definitely get in the way of a child’s best interests.
Every parent has to say “no” to their own desires in order to serve their children.
Marty, those rules are precisely what Postgenderism and Transgenderism deny. They want to enable men to be mothers and women to be fathers using technology. It isn’t enough just to scoff that they can’t do it, we have to actually prohibit people from attempting those things. We don’t have to let them attempt it, in fact we have to prohibit them in order to preserve equality and human rights, protect children, and stop a ridiculously huge entitlement from bankrupting us. Please voice support for an egg and sperm law.
That is not necessarily true. A man could procreate with another man and a woman could procreate with another woman if they used technology like that which the motherless and fatherless mice were created. Now, gay couples would probably say they are two mothers or two fathers, but transgendered people would claim to be the other sex.
@Mont
Tell me again why you are opposed to the once respectable practice of creating castrati?
The FDA approves drugs only for certain conditions and certain populations. Just because a drug is approved for one condition or population does not mean it has been approved for another. Pharmaceuticals companies have been fined severely for failing to make that distinction. Where has the FDA approved this drug for this condition at this age?
As Paul McHugh is University Distinguished Service Professor of Psychiatry at Johns Hopkins University put it:
“I have witnessed a great deal of damage from sex-reassignment. The children transformed from their male constitution into female roles suffered prolonged distress and misery as they sensed their natural attitudes. Their parents usually lived with guilt over their decisions—second-guessing themselves and somewhat ashamed of the fabrication, both surgical and social, they had imposed on their sons. [But presumably not in the case at hand!] As for the adults who came to us claiming to have discovered their “true” sexual identity and to have heard about sex-change operations, we psychiatrists have been distracted from studying the causes and natures of their mental misdirections by preparing them for surgery and for a life in the other sex. We have wasted scientific and technical resources and damaged our professional credibility by collaborating with madness rather than trying to study, cure, and ultimately prevent it.”
Tommy’s course, however, is presumably fixed, pardon the pun. This is Berkeley and the Bay Area. A local journalist, teacher, child protective services worker, or other professional wishing to keep his or her professional career on course knows they would quickly be “discredited” if they dared to intervene.
@John Howard
You’re right, John.
That is to be opposed, and thank you for doing so.
@Ruth
Thanks Ruth. What we really need is for Dr. J and Maggie to be opposed, and for them to call for a federal law that actually prohibits it. As long as they continue to look the other way and let it happen, it’s gonna happen. My opposition so far hasn’t stopped anything, but yours and theirs would have an impact.
[The FDA approves drugs only for certain conditions and certain populations. Just because a drug is approved for one condition or population does not mean it has been approved for another. Pharmaceuticals companies have been fined severely for failing to make that distinction. Where has the FDA approved this drug for this condition at this age?]
You are misunderstanding the system – it is not illegal, inappropriate or medically unethical to prescribe drugs off-label. It is not defined as experimental. FDA does not prevent any Doctor from prescribing any legal drug to anyone for any reason. For medical professionals drugs are legal to prescribe or they are not. FDA approval stops pharmaceuticals companies from advertising drugs for uses the FDA has not approved it doesn’t restrict Doctors in any way.
Paul McHugh is one guy. A very well credentialed guy, but just one guy. Here is an incomplete list of equally credentialed people who disagree with him.
• Michael Besser, St Bartholomew’s Hospital, London, UK
• Caroline Brain, Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children & Middlesex Hospital, London, UK
• Polly Carmichael, Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children, UK
• Peggy Cohen-Kettenis, VU University Medical Centre, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
• Henriette Delemarre-van de Waal, VUUniversity Medical Centre, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
• Petra De Sutter, Ghent University, Belgium
• Domenico Di Ceglie, The Tavistock and Portman NHS Trust, London, UK
• Simona Giordano, University of Manchester Medical School, UK
• Wylie Hembree, Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons, New York, USA
• Peter Lee, Penn State College of Medicine, Hershey, Pennsylvania, USA
• Walter Meyer, University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston, Texas, USA
• Bernard & Terry Reed, GIRES, UK
• Veronica Sharp, Mermaids, UK
• Norman Spack, Children’s Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
• Russell Viner, Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children & Middlesex Hospital, London, UK
• Garry Warne, Royal Children’s Hospital, Parkville, Victoria, Australia
They met in 2005 to establish Developing Guidelines for Endocrinological Intervention in the Gender Identity Development Treatment of Adolescents. They approved the protocol being used to treat the child we are talking about.
[This is Berkeley and the Bay Area. A local journalist, teacher, child protective services worker, or other professional wishing to keep his or her professional career on course knows they would quickly be “discredited” if they dared to intervene.]
As they should be. This ia an accepted medical treatment for a recognized medical problem. It is legal and ethical by any commonly understood definition of those words. Why would any of these people object? Why would they not be discredited if they intervened?
[Tell me again why you are opposed to the once respectable practice of creating castrati?]
Again, I’m not sure why this is relevant – the treatment this child is receiving is noninvasive, reversible and completely safe. It has been used for years to suppress puberty with no ill effects. Treatments the child and his family may choose later will only be partially reversible or completely irreversible. This treatment was developed to postpone those more drastic interventions.
Also creating castrati while respectable was not a medical treatment. Like footbinding or rib removal and toe amputation it offered no medical benefits and no one claimed it did.
@Mont D. Law
Do you have a website or something? More people need to hear your arguments…
@Ruth
Unless the definition of ‘sins’ is specific, then your idea, Ruth is impossible. The considerable bias on this issue would make such laws unfair and unworkable because of prejudice and conflation of not only religious dogma, but gender bias as well.
In my previous post, how faith communities define gender is and pretty much always has been artificial, narrow and unrealistic.
Gender is morally neutral. Sin has nothing to do with morals, it’s a religious factor to define gender as rigid, when it’s actually FLUID.
A woman might not ever be a father, in the strictest biological sense where physical and genital structure is concerned, but a woman can always have characteristics that people assume only belong to males.
Doesn’t mean only the definition of what is characteristically or ideally feminine or masculine is what is true for every man and woman or should be.
Faith communities don’t necessarily respect what is unique and individual where gender is concerned. THAT is the problem.
And in this, religious based enforcement should stay out of the issue.
If anything, the problem with FERTILITY intervention, as been that sperm donors especially aren’t limited in how many donations they can make or who it goes to.
IVF has become such a mega industry, that a single donor can father hundreds of children who are all half siblings.
Creating the risk of accidental incest, and genetic disorders.
But then again, what the gay, transgendered and the kinds of demands that brought technology into fertility, is the kind of insane stigma there is against the infertile or contraception and contraceptive sex.
Pretty much the root of the socio political divide has roots in religious misogyny and taboos on contraception.
@Regan DuCasse
Absolutely.
If you prayerfully study the Bible with the purpose of knowing God and doing His will, no matter how inconvenient it may seem to be, you will know which path to take. And in that way is life.
If that’s true, why do people come to such radically different conclusions about God’s will?
@Roivas
“Enter in through the narrow gate, for wide the gate and broad the way that leads to destruction, and many are they who enter in through it. For narrow the gate and straitened the way that leads to life, and they are few who find it.”
“Then Jesus said to his disciples, If any one desires to come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. For whosoever shall desire to save his life shall lose it; but whosoever shall lose his life for my sake shall find it.”
@Mont
So you wouldn’t be against the creation of castrati if the operation met the medical criteria of being “safe” and “effective” (ask a vet about the safety issue in this common practice with animals) and if a number of prominent people supported it (as was the case at the time).
Puberty is not a disease and should not be treated as such.
@ Ruth,
Fortunately, I had exceptionally well educated and informed parents. So therefore my life has been. Our house was full of all kinds of books. I was raised in church, and also temple. My best friend from the time of grade school was Jewish. We had the Bhagivad Ghita in our home, as well as the Bible. All manner of different forms of worship was a subject of HISTORY my parents felt important, but were fair enough to understood people by their deeds, not their religious claims.
Ruth, you don’t know my cultural background, but members of my family, AND myself and my gay loved ones were and are horribly abused by people claiming they follow the Bible.
Which has led me NOT to trust it. Not EVER.
So just DON’T with the hard sell of it, okay?
So blame your lying, abusing, violent and nasty brethren for that. Not my lack of faith in God.
Handle your religious business with some respect for how others take their path alternative to the Bible.
It’s NEVER going to say anything differently, except depending on who interprets it for them.
I’ve been in places of quiet, astonishing beauty, peace and comfort. I’m talking about the colors at sunset, or a breaking dawn over a cornfield in Iowa.
Standing among giant redwoods or the rock sculptures in Monument Valley.
When children have smiled at me or laughed with me.
Or what a child looks like when they pucker up to give kisses.
The photographs of the universe revealed by the Hubble spacecraft, that an unborn child can be seen by a 3D sonographic image or the taste of grapes or almonds or the smell of roses…watching the shuttle blast off or my iPhone, the poetry of Shakespeare or Langston Hughes or Pablo Neruda…
Or a flight of music by Beethoven or the voice of Kathleen Battle…
I don’t need the Bible or YOU to tell me where God is.
It’s the LOVE in us, and how we pass it along is where God is.
Having said that…medical doctors are bidden to take an oath of first doing no harm. But certain communities still trying to frame our 21st century fearlessness, in fearful virtual Stone Age directives expect the same establishment to ignore the fluidity of gender, or brave coming to other conclusions through less cruel means and experimentation.
My original question has gone unanswered: why are the transgendered threatened and being kept from gainful education and professional opportunities. Why threatened with casual street violence and political and systemic discrimination.
There is a video of a young transwoman being set on and beaten by two other young women. Not only attacker her like a pair of pitbulls, but the person who was taking the footage was laughing at the attack.
So who has the moral stones to answer that simple one.
My comments tend to be long, because the subject matter is never simple or easy to explain because the details and context are important. Eliminating them doesn’t advance what needs to be.
@Regan DuCasse
Even the smartest parents are not worthy of worship.
The cruel people you have met are not worthy of worship.
Nor are you or I worthy of worship.
The God who has revealed Himself in nature, in the creativity of artists, and in His word, the Bible – and the living Word, Jesus – is alone worthy of worship.
I recommend this man’s story:
http://www.tradingmysorrows.com/
@Regan DuCasse
“I’ve been in places of quiet, astonishing beauty, peace and comfort. I’m talking about the colors at sunset, or a breaking dawn over a cornfield in Iowa.
Standing among giant redwoods or the rock sculptures in Monument Valley.
When children have smiled at me or laughed with me.
Or what a child looks like when they pucker up to give kisses.
The photographs of the universe revealed by the Hubble spacecraft, that an unborn child can be seen by a 3D sonographic image or the taste of grapes or almonds or the smell of roses…watching the shuttle blast off or my iPhone, the poetry of Shakespeare or Langston Hughes or Pablo Neruda…
Or a flight of music by Beethoven or the voice of Kathleen Battle…
I don’t need the Bible or YOU to tell me where God is.”
Regan, you seem to have managed to find beauty virtually everywhere EXCEPT the Bible. There is plenty of beauty to be found in the Bible. The Bible is a Love story. Could it be that beauty with a purpose and direction frightens you?
Your posts seem filled with anger and frustration. Perhaps the beauty you have found is insufficient to sustain you. Perhaps the beauty of the Bible could help?
[So you wouldn’t’t be against the creation of castrato if the operation met the medical criteria of being “safe” and “effective”]
Actually the criteria I cited in this discussion was safe, effective and reversible but whatever. You still haven’t explained how a widely accepted and medically supported treatment for gender identity disorder is the same as the historical mutilation of children for non-medical reasons. This would be an excellent argument against male circumcision but not much else.
[and if a number of prominent people supported it (as was the case at the time).]
I posted the list of the experts who developed the medical protocol we are discussing in response to the single expert you cited twice. I am sure that many prominent people supported the creation of castrati, including the Catholic Church, however it was not a medical treatment and they weren’t doctors so I’m still not sure of the relevance.
[Puberty is not a disease and should not be treated as such.]
Except when it is. The reason we know that this treatment is safe, effective and reversible is because it’s been used to treat the 1 in 5000 children who have medical issues surrounding puberty unrelated to gender identity disorder.