Child given drugs to delay onset of puberty

[magicstix]

Originally Posted by August

I'd think that few 14 or 15 year olds would be competent to make such a weighty decision. If they are then they ought to be competent to drive, drink and smoke too.

Then he/she can wait till he/she is 18. In any case the people involved are thinking of the child's best interests, which you apparently aren't.

Why does it bother you so much that someone is choosing to raise their child differently than you? How does it affect you? No harm is done to the child, in fact quite the opposite.

Where do you as a person get off telling someone else how to raise their kids? Isn't conservatism supposed to be about these exact individual rights and choices?

Isn't conservatism supposed to be about these exact individual rights and choices?

Its about rights and choices they agree with, in the same way as its benefits they earned but handouts others demand.

[jumpy]

Oh, FFS

Since when was what sex you are physically a 'choice' except in the rarest of cases when the child is androgynous and a medical choice has to be made?

I'm all for live and let live when it comes to lifestyle choices, but I think these 'two mommies' need their heads testing.
At face value, this story is akin to the one I heard about the vegan who only fed her cat vegetables because it fit better with her ideology.

For the record I'd have the same opinion of a heterosexual couple who sought to assert some gender assignment contrary to the child's physical makeup.

Granted there may be a deeper mental aspect to the child's development, but again, I'd have to ask (no matter how incorrect it sounds) would a child raised by two gay women have a more profound confusion as to it's gender/sex than a child raised by a man and a woman? I don't know the answer to this and by no means is it to say that same sex couples cannot raise well adjusted kids, but messing with gender unless there's a specific physical need to do so, is a sure fire way to damage a kid.
I know one thing; the child is going to have a deeply confused and unhappy life having such confusion over his gender, never mind the stigma he will undoubtedly experience in his peer group come his early teens.
Maybe my view is a bit old fashioned and not a progressive as some, but there are some things you just don't meddle with.

In this world we do not have 'rights' we have privileges - there's a subtle difference.

[tater]

The OP blur lacks critical information. Is the kid intersex? There are several legitimate types of intersex (a few years ago when I helped my wife study for her medical boards in urology I would have remembered all the types, lol, she made me go over all that with her since it was stuff she had not seen in RL). Anyway, if the kid has a physiological issue, this treatment is entirely right. It can make a difference in gender assignment surgery, etc, later.

Again, need more information.

Funny story. My wife saw an old guy—ww2 or korea vet (I can't remember)—at the VA when she was a resident. Married, no kids. Don;t remember what he presented with. She examines him, talks to him, etc. Goes out to the guys doc who has seen him at the VA for years and who called her for a consult... she asks him if he ever notice the guy's pubic hair was a triangle, not a diamond shape? The doc looks at her like "WTF?" She says, "the guy is intersex. Sure enough on some future bloodwork she adds some tests, and the guy is genetically female. (she never told the patient, BTW, some 80 YO doesn't need to know that). None of the guy's docs had ever noticed.

[Takeda Shingen]

Originally Posted by August

But of course they MUST have an ulterior motive right?

Well, if it looks like a duck, waddles like a duck and quacks like a duck it probably isn't a chipmunk.

[August]

Originally Posted by magicstix

Then he/she can wait till he/she is 18. In any case the people involved are thinking of the child's best interests, which you apparently aren't.

Actually I think I am looking out for the child's interests. You on the other hand seem to be ok with the parents playing God with a child's physical and mental development.

Why does it bother you so much that someone is choosing to raise their child differently than you?

Giving a child drugs that alter the natural growing process is a heck of a lot more intrusive than just "choosing to raise their child differently". You talk about it like it's a hairstyle choice.

Where do you as a person get off telling someone else how to raise their kids? Isn't conservatism supposed to be about these exact individual rights and choices?

Where do you "as a person" get off telling me what opinions i'm allowed to have?

[tater]

Unless there is a real diagnosis of intersex, I think the child should wait til he/she is an adult to decide, period. Without such a diagnosis it is a psych issue, not a medical issue. Maybe he's just gonna be a drag queen (which is fine).

[magicstix]

Originally Posted by tater

Unless there is a real diagnosis of intersex, I think the child should wait til he/she is an adult to decide, period. Without such a diagnosis it is a psych issue, not a medical issue. Maybe he's just gonna be a drag queen (which is fine).

The problem is if you force the child to wait until he/she is 18, it's too late. Puberty causes irreversible changes. What they're doing now is the absolute correct thing, as it allows the child to make the choice with no regrets. Would you force your kid to wait until he's 18 to get a cast on a broken arm? To remove an appendix? To fix a birth defect?

There's no difference between a psych issue and a "medical" issue. It all starts in the brain. We give antidepressants for depression, anxiolytics for anxiety, anti-psychotics for bipolar disorders, schizophrenia, etc...

Would you all be crying foul if they were giving this child Ritalin for a diagnosed condition of ADHD? Or Prozac for depression? What about Xanax or Lexapro for a severe anxiety disorder?

Gender Identity Disorder has a better understood biological basis than most psychological issues. Gender identity is biologically set in the brain and it doesn't always match the body; there are plenty of studies to back this up. It has essentially nothing to do with nurture. The parents aren't forcing the child to do *anything.* They're following their psychiatrist's recommendations in the case. GID has a known treatment when properly diagnosed: reassignment surgery, and they've made it clear to the child that at ANY time if he wants to go back to being a boy that it's OK and that he *should.*

Read the actual case. The child insisted he was female from an early age, which is a classic sign of GID.

I think the problem here is a lot of people have this "icky factor" because it just seems weird to them that someone would want to change their gender. Try putting yourself in the other shoe. Say you wake up one morning as the opposite gender. Given the demographics for this forum I'll assume for most of you that means you'll be waking up as a girl. Now on top of that, say people are telling you that you *must* like men and *must* dress and act like a girl, because you look like a girl to everyone else, and that if you don't agree there's something wrong with you. You'd probably think that sucks, wouldn't you? Pretty much all people with GID don't *want* to have it, who would want to put themselves through all of the madness involved in a sex change? Most of them wish it would just go away and they could be happy with their physical gender. Unfortunately, there's no pill or treatment out there that has been able to change the brain to match the body, so the current treatment is to go the opposite direction. The vast majority of them that go through the procedure are better off for it. Just look at before and after pictures. On the before side, you usually see some mopey boy/girl who looks like they hate life, never smiling in any picture, more or less drifting through life. On the after side, they're always smiling, even if the results are less than stellar.

I think a lot of the "ickiness" comes from people who don't transition well (i.e. they still look like guys/girls, or are otherwise less than attractive). The sad thing is this just shows vanity in people.

Ask yourself, would you be so creeped out if the sex change were perfect? If it was impossible for you to tell the other person used to be the opposite gender, would you care?

If your answer is no, then you can't be opposed to what the parents are doing in this case, because by delaying puberty they're allowing the child to have as perfect a transition as possible under current medical technology. In almost every way, shape, and form, it will be as if he were born female, and he'll be happier and healthier for it.

If your answer is yes, you have to ask yourself why. If your only answer is "turning yourself into a girl is icky," then consider this: *all* of you started out female in the womb. The "default" path of human development is female. At 8 weeks, if you have a Y chromosome, your gender changes to male.

The parents are doing the right thing for a child who is obviously suffering. For what reason would you deny another human being who is not harming you or affecting you in any way at all their happiness?

[magicstix]

Originally Posted by jumpy

In this world we do not have 'rights' we have privileges - there's a subtle difference.

This statement could not be more antithetical to the American spirit. Such a mentality is what is so pervasive on the left with their view that the government should control every aspect of our lives.

[Platapus]

Originally Posted by August

But of course they MUST have an ulterior motive right?

They do have motivations. It does not have to be ulterior. In the case of Fox News, there is nothing ulterior about their motives.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by magicstix

This statement could not be more antithetical to the American spirit. Such a mentality is what is so pervasive on the left with their view that the government should control every aspect of our lives.

Yep, that could only have been said by someone who is a subject, and not a citizen. Part of the reason for the 'Declaration of Independence' thread.

[Lord Justice]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

Yep, that could only have been said by someone who is a subject, and not a citizen. Part of the reason for the 'Declaration of Independence' thread.

Very good I must say. Now I must decide Steve, who is a subject or an independent.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Lord Justice

Very good I must say. Now I must decide Steve, who is a subject or an independent.

Well, I'm subject to several things I don't like including certain rules, regulations and infirmities, and not as independent as I wish I was.

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

Yep, that could only have been said by someone who is a subject, and not a citizen. Part of the reason for the 'Declaration of Independence' thread.

The statement did make my inner John Locke cringe a bit.

[jumpy]

Originally Posted by magicstix

This statement could not be more antithetical to the American spirit. Such a mentality is what is so pervasive on the left with their view that the government should control every aspect of our lives.

If I'm understanding you correctly (and I might be way off the mark lol) you think my statement is either a bad thing or an untruth, or both? Certainly contrary to what makes america such a great place (you'll forgive the phrasing - I couldn't think of a more diplomatic way to put it )

I'd say it was quite correct - everyone bangs on about established rights (not just over there with you guys, but here in the UK too), my right, your rights, enshrined rights, constitutional rights, the list goes on. However the rights of the individual only stretch so far as they don't impinge upon other individuals; and in the case of governments, only as far as it suits them to grant you rights. Rights which governments will quite happily rescind at any time if they feel the justification to do so, hence they are privileges and not rights.
As one example, ask any japanese american about his rights back in 1942.

People can be snide about who is a 'citizen' and who is a 'subject', but you cannot say that under either system, you have any more or less entitlement to rights in a democratic system. Governments will more or less do as they please when they make laws; from the rights to personal freedoms of individuals and groups, to corporate taxation and healthcare. Sure you have the right to have your voice ignored