Don't have time but wanted to get this out
Posted by ak (Member # 90) on :
Alan Turing also apparently committed suicide, after having been legally forced to take some sort of hormone therapy to "cure" him of his homosexuality. The hormones made him grow breasts.
Be wary of doctors with good intentions.
I got the faintest hint of what that must be like, I think, being told as a child that girls didn't do the things I wanted to do. Being told over and over in various ways that I was not a proper girl. As it was, I learned early to ignore that, and gained acceptance, at least, if not approval, from my family and friends. How much worse must it be for people with serious disconnects between society's expectations and their own identities?
Is there anyone who is qualified to make pronouncements of gender, or gender roles, really, besides the person themselves?
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
My birth announcement from the local paper in my birth city said I was a boy.
...but all my girl parts are in perfect working order.
So I think it was a typo.
Or I was babynapped. O_O
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
I never heard about Turing's hormone treatments, but I heard about the government of the nation he helped save cutting him away from his work for fear that he was blackmailable and therefore subvertable, and about them spying on him, discrediting him, and hounding him. I think the British government bears quite a bit of direct blame for his suicide. And then there's homophobia in general . . .
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I guess the scary thing to think about is if I were those parents, would I have allowed them to conduct the sex change procedure? Today, never. But when I had my first child I was pretty easily impressed by authority figures.
And while I have argued that people can choose their own way, I think efforts to change others are immoral.
Posted by Mabus (Member # 6320) on :
Would it have mattered?
I don't mean that in an insensitive way. Under the circumstances he would still have had to undergo reparative surgery; he might not have found "being a man" all that much easier. At this point, who can say?
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
Mabus,
I don't have the references handy, but I know there has been at least one study looking at long-term followup of intersexed people.
My recollection is that a number of adults who avoided surgical alteration were found. Compared to the surgically altered group, they were more satisfied with their lives and their sexual identity.
Your statement simply echoes what the logic of the doctors advocating surgery has been. The advocacy of the pretty drastic surgical and psychological intervention has always been based on supposition rather than any real science.
And when the medical profession sets established procedures on that foundation, it deserves to be called to task - harshly.
Posted by littlemissattitude (Member # 4514) on :
A sad, sad story. Basically, it seems, the doctors said, "Oops. We broke him. But will fix him right up. We'll make him a girl, and then everything will be fine."
One of my big problems here (and I'll probably start another storm with this, but so be it) is that it seemed, from what I read in the article, that one of the biggest concerns was that they make someone who would appear to be a functioning heterosexual. As if that were the be-all and end-all of existence.
Another problem that I have with how this case was handled was the secrecy that was involved. You don't just make this kind of decision for someone and then advise that they never, ever be told what was done to them. In this case it seems obvious that such a course caused a lot of problems.
I don't know a lot about this sort of case, past what I learned in a college Human Sexuality course and what I've seen in three or four documentaries. But it seems to me that just unilaterally deciding, in infancy, to arbitrarily decide an individual's gender (as seems to be done as a matter of practice in those born with indeterminate gentials) based on what seems "easiest" to the surgeons is just not good practice. It appears from the information that I've been exposed to that those individuals in this sort of situation who do not get early surgical intervention are generally happier and healthier (emotionally, at least) than those who have often irrevocable decisions made for them at a time when they couldn't possibly have any input into something that is literally life-changing.
Posted by ak (Member # 90) on :
Isn't this essentially the same thing that people are doing to gay people, and transsexuals, and so on, by telling them they must conform to society's expectations about their gender?
Posted by fallow (Member # 6268) on :
"conformation is Satan's casting couch* - flish
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
When I was in grad school, they were still teaching Dr. Money's version of things, as the refutation had not yet happened.
This story was already one of the saddest things I'd ever learned about. But now, to see it in its final form, I just can't imagine the pain and grief that poor kid and his family went through.
Posted by fallow (Member # 6268) on :
'tis a hard row to hoe.
*rake on!*
fallow
Posted by ak (Member # 90) on :
Does anyone besides me take the lesson from this story that circumcision is a stupid bad evil thing and consider that not mutilating your children to begin with might be a better idea?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Yes, ak. That's definitely the message I took away from it. Posted by ak (Member # 90) on :
<laughs> Okay, well, I can't argue with religious reasons. But otherwise, definitely!
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
*shrug* Actually, I don't consider it "evil" or "mutilation" or even "stupid bad" if done carefully and properly -- regardless of whether there is a religious motivation or not.
Posted by Mabus (Member # 6320) on :
SNdrake, I can't disagree with you regarding the study. What I was suggesting is that given the injury he had already suffered, a hypothetical male reconstruction as an infant might well have been no better or more satisfying than the one he experienced much later in life.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
If the surgery had worked, and if the child and man had been happy, we'd all be looking at the case as something at least acceptable after a horribly botched procedure.
But the fact of the matter is that this unfortunate person had zero chance at a "normal" life if you define normal as possession of functioning sex organs.
What was attempted was based on a set of assumptions that turn out to be false.
To say Dr. Money should've known better begs the larger question of our lack of knowledge of human sexuality, gender-role development, and early developmental stages. The fact is, this made a certain amount of sense when they tried it. Then, things didn't look so good in retrospect. That they used this kid to learn that is the truly horrible part of it all.
And that's another place where the truth should've prevailed and didn't. Instead of saying "we don't know," the doctors acted as if they did know. And the fact that they didn't know didn't come back on them, it was heaped on the life of this unfortunate individual who was forced to live a lie and couldn't make sense of it.
What would he have been if they'd just let him grow up without this added psychological trauma? Who knows. The article suggests he might've killed himself anyway, and there's at least some reason to at least suspect that might've been true. But we'll never know.
The truth even of his death is not forthcoming.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Another overall principle I think applies is that medicine should be used to treat illness and disease, to correct damage. Not to create. Doctors who embark upon the latter are "playing God".
Plastic surgery to restore someone who has been mangled is a beautiful thing. Plastic surgery to give some ridiculous idealized appearance is a waste of precious medical resources.
Currently the thinking is that homosexuality is not an illness, and to impose heterosexuality over it would be playing God- trying to create sexual orientation which is still not well understood. I agree that medical interventions shouldn't be relied upon to intervene with sexual orientation. But I feel this applies not only to sparing gays shock treatment and analysis, but also to biochemical and surgical sex change.
If I were to have an intersexed child today, I would raise them as a cherished gift from God. If one of my children were gay, I would still love them though I would mourn for their "normalcy" which no one really has anyway.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
ak, the article seemed to say that the circumcision was medically necessary. That's why it was not done until the boys were 18 months old.
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
Bob,
just wanted to thank you for stating clearly what I tried to say - and which came out kind of garbled. Just one additional caveat, though.
As pooka's latest post suggests, the majority of children subjected to this treatment weren't victims of medical accidents. They were simply members of a minority of children born with unusual genitalia.
The reasons are varied, but the fact is that the majority of children subjected to sexual reassignment were born with the "condition." The focus of the article and many of the critiques on David Reimer tend to blur that fact.
(I'm getting ready to leave for Harry Potter and the POA soon, so it's not a good time to hunt down websites.)
Edit to add to Mabus: the issue isn't what "kind" of sexual reassignment or restorative surgery should be done in infancy.
The issue is whether or not it should be done at all at that stage of life. I'll have to research it, but I don't think surgically unaltered intersexed people have a large tendency to seek out surgical alteration as adults.
[ June 06, 2004, 11:23 AM: Message edited by: sndrake ]
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Steve, you raise some great points.
I've never studied sexual reassignment as a topic. In fact, the only thing I remember from any classes was this particular case.
I recall the studies on abnormal genitalia and at the time I went through grad school, I think the general consensus agreed with Money and the other people who came down on the side of "nurture" being more important than nature for gender role assignment. But the findings were by no means unequivocal.
But again, I don't remember much on surgery to "correct" the abnormal genitalia and then assign one role or the other depending on which set of organs were left intact.
I think the whole thing is horrible. But I'm not averse to corrective surgery if that's what it is. I think when faced with a truly hermaphroditic child, it'd be a daunting prospect for a parent. You put a lot of hope and dreams on an infant and to find out that this person is going to have to grow up with ambiguity about something so basic as gender would be to dash many of those dreams and hopes.
Sure, a parent could love such a child. And sure, the person could grow up well adjusted. But at the moment when the decision would seem to be important -- like the earlier you pick one or the other gender to "go with" the better -- you have nothing to go on.
In retrospect, now that there's at least some history on the lives of people who had surgery in infancy (and a lifetime of hormone treatments), I suppose a better decision could be made. But back then, I bet not. I bet the best advice was "decide now, stick with it, and hope for the best."
Lousy sure, but not exactly unexpected given the state of knowledge.
Even today, I wouldn't be surprised to learn that parents are told that they should pick a gender and decide immediately before the child starts to become aware of gender roles in general. And it would still be a compelling case when a parent looks down the road and thinks about childhood friendships, parties, schools, and so forth. You'd want your child to feel like he or she was one thing or another, and not both.
And raising them to be openly aware of an ambiguity would not work well, it would seem. Not in this culture anyway. You wouldn't want to delay knowing that you were setting up your child for automatic "freakdom" throughout their formative years.
The fact that it doesn't work and that waiting to (if ever) have a surgical assignment is the better course would still be hard to take.
I don't know what I would do, but I sure would at least get expert opinions and read up on it a lot before making up my mind.
But I'm old enough to know better. I can imagine what a young couple freaking out about this would do.
My friends had a daughter and the doctor told them that her genitalia looked abnormal. Turns out it was swelling from some minor trauma during the delivery. But he was "watching" to see if she might be a hermaphrodite. It was horrible to see what the parents were going through. Immigrants to the US, not really trusting the bureacracy or the medical establishment. Using the E.R. for most of their medical care. And then finding out that there might be something really "wrong" with their daughter. It was horrible.
And the mom wasn't able to breast feed. Got a bad infection.
The whole time was just a nightmare.
I don't know what they would've done had it turned out that their daughter had dual sex organs. I remember my advice at the time was that I thought the doctor was an idiot. Turns out I was right. But if they'd had a real problem I just don't know what they would've done. Or what help or advice I might've offered.
Posted by Mabus (Member # 6320) on :
Sndrake, just to clarify--the suggestion you were making was that Reiner should have been allowed, like an individual born abnormal, to grow up sans genitalia, and then let him/her decide later?
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
When it comes to ambiguous genetalia they should not operate. It seems to do more damage to the child in the long run. The problem is society. A child with an abiguous gender would be teased unmercilessly throughout school. Therefore, children need to be taught not to tease people and to except difference.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
It has always chaffed me that when there is some question of the child's gender that so many doctors seem to automatically decide "girl". It is as though they think the worst thing in the world is to be a male with an abnormal or absent member. I chalk this up to the fact that the doctors and surgeons in these cases are most often men, men who are horrified at the above idea. So they assume the child would be happier as a girl.
I know it isn't a simple matter of genetics. Some are born XY and have a syndrome that makes there body completely female. But I figure it is a decent rule of thumb, if the child has a "Y" chromosome, "boy" is a good bet. And if there is some ambiguity in gender, parents/others shouldn't be surprised if sexual orientation is not what they may have expected! (Expect the unexpected! )
And, how do you "botch a circumcision"? In days past when our equipment and technology were less sophisticated, I can understand that. But even a generation ago, how did that happen? Bobbit lost his, thrown out into the forest, and it was still able to be restored.
Obviously, I don't know enough about this whole thing to know what I am talking about, so I will stop ranting now. Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Crudely they say it's easier to dig a hole than build a pole. That is why they make them female by default. It leads to a lot of confusion later in life. Especially if they feel more like a male with something missing.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Synth, I have heard that phrase before (and forgotten about it.)
But I must wonder to myself, how is that artificial hole any more functional that a misformed or even absent pole? Assuming cases where there is no internal female organs, there is no reproductive purpose, and since it is artificial it can't be very useful for pleasure. I still think it boils down to male doctors being horrified at anyone having to go through life as a male with no whang. So instead, they change the person's entire identity.
This is particularly distasteful to me considering my religious belief in eternal nature of gender, namely that we were a particular gender before we were born, always have been and we will always be. I believe that hermaphrodites have a soul that is either male or female but they were born with a body that is ambiguous. I believe when they are ressurrected, it will be as the gender they truly are and always have been, and this ambiguity is but a temporary mortal test. (Consequentally, I believe the same about innate homosexuality.)
So anyway, I do not approve of turning males into females because they are missing a part of their bodies, however "essential" that part may seem to a happy life.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I don't know... There seems to be a growing underground school of thought that states that gender is on a spectrum and there is as many as 5 different genders. It's an interesting and possible perspective.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
I've seen that mentioned here before and was intrigued. I would be interested in reading about it, if you could point me to a link.
I certainly don't expect everyone to believe as I do. I don't believe it because of any scientific evidence, I believe it for spiritual/religious reasons, and there are plenty in the world who do not give such things any weight. As with anything else I believe on faith, I don't expect science to prove it, nor would I be surprised if science found evidence for *or* against it.
In my mind, science is the fallible human mind groping in the dark with fallible logic and based on best guesses. It does a good job of describing how the observable universe works, but we are constantly finding our past assumptions to be wrong. It certainly is very useful as a tool, but it is hardly the final word on Truth. Many would say faith is inferior to science and human logic. I am not one of those.
Edit: I did a quick google, and I see what those 5 different genders would be. That is an interesting way of looking at it, a very accepting way. But in my mind it doesn't make much sense.
I know it is offensive to say that homosexuals and hemaphrodites are abnormalities, but they are far in the minority. Abnormal should not automatically equal bad. Normal simply means what is most common.
In my mind there is a useful purpose in saying there are two genders since both are required (currently) for reproduction, compliment each other, and are drawn to each other (the overwhelming majority of the time). To categorize the others as genders seems to be nothing more than an attempt to make those who are abnormal feel normal (again, not that abnormal is bad.)
I do believe that sexuality is a spectrum. So if you are going to include these abnormalities (of which I am one) categorizing them would be a very limiting factor. Where would you draw the line? How many categories would you make? Either someone gets left out or there are a ridiculous number of categories. What about a gender that is attracted to children? Animals? Furries? See, you can't base gender on what you are attracted to, it just starts to get ridiculous.
[ June 06, 2004, 08:32 PM: Message edited by: beverly ]
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Mostly it's individual experience I have more faith in. For example, a gay individual's personal story for me is more true and valid than a church's dogma against homosexuality.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
The two are not necessarily in conflict with one another. I believe that there are many people out there that are gay because that is the way God made them, and yet I believe that homosexuality is wrong in God's view.
I believe God made people with body parts that are missing or don't work properly. I believe that God allows innocent children to suffer and/or die. I believe that many of these individuals have a much heavier burden to bear than the homosexual individual who believes out of faith that homosexual relations are not sanctioned by God and does everything in their power to encourage heterosexual attraction. Many will fail because they are not capable of such attraction and never will be in this life. After all God does not heal or save all His children either.
Many will chose to no longer believe in that faith that tells them their attraction must not be realized. Heck, I can understand that. It certainly isn't my place to condemn someone doing something I happen to think is a sin when they don't happen to think it is a sin. If they did happen to believe it was a sin, I would probably encourage them to do what they believed was right.
But how is that any worse than any of the other things that God supposedly allows? It is not that hard to believe that a God who allows all the suffering that He does *might* also be a God who creates homosexuals and yet does not sanction homosexual relations.
Many would look at such a Being and think, "How sadistic! How evil! How cruel!" The real trick is believing that such a God deeply loves and understands. Do I believe that He does? Yes. Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
Beverly,
I'm pretty sure your thoughts on the rationale of doctors is pretty dead on. Mostly male doctors made their determinations according to whether there was "enough" penis (I seem to recall that kids with abnormally small penises are among those who have fallen to the knife.)
It's interesting - I did a lot of reading on this topic nine or ten years ago. I had a friend who was an intersexed individual - one of those who escaped detection at birth.
This person (watch for awkward pronoun usage now) didn't identify as either male or female. Their own self-identity was neuter. (And had some funny stories about professional advice in the teenage years advising parents in attempts to force the person to act like either a girl or boy.)
I'm pretty sure this person would reject the notion of a true male or female nature. They fought pretty hard in maintaining the identity that felt true to them - against all kinds of resistance.
Syn - thanks for the website. It looks like a pretty good starting point in terms of education.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Sndrake, I have never personally known a intersexed individual. It would be troubling to not identify with one gender or the other in this world of two definite genders. Most homosexuals at least don't have to worry about whether they are a "he" or "she". Even if they decide to become the other gender, they still have a pronoun that they prefer. I like how the Philippine languages are gender neutral. Their pronouns are neuter, as are words for brother/sister, neice/nephew, husband/wife, son/daughter etc. I hate having to say "they" for a single individual of unknown gender or he/she or whatnot. Oh well, what can you do? Maybe our language will change over time, who can say?
American Sign Language is very similar in it's neutral grammer, as well as some other interesting similarities with Tagalog (the Philippine language I sorta know how to speak). On the subject of American Sign Language, I have mentioned this before in relation to homosexuality and my religious beliefs. There is a strong Deaf community for whom being deaf is a very important part of their identity. Many of them sorrow at having "hearing" children. They look at choclear implants and other technological advances as threatening their culture.
Picture this: An LDS missionary visits a Deaf family to share their faith. They teach about the ressurrection. They deliver what they believe to be a glorious message of hope: that after the ressurrection, these Deaf people will be able to hear. They wait for the joyous response but are greeted with looks of horror and questions of "what if I don't *want* to be Hearing?"
The fact is, there are many Deaf who feel this way. They don't want to be Hearing, it would change an extremely intimate part of who they are. I see this as being very much like your friend. If indeed my beliefs are True, such Truth would be rather distasteful to your friend (argh! lack of pronoun). Especially if there is no obvious sense of what gender they innately are.
So, in these beliefs of mine, is post-ressurrection a matter of God saying, "You'll eat your broccoli and you'll LIKE IT!" or when we understand Things As They Truly Are will we be deeply grateful?
[ June 06, 2004, 09:36 PM: Message edited by: beverly ]
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Not to be rude, but that is very, very confusing... I have a lot of trouble believing in God for that very reason; God allowing suffering that is unnessary. Like this book I am reading about self-mutilation. Then I realize it is people who cause this suffering. People who make these rules against gayness or make it harder for people who are different. It really does have to stop sometime in this lifetime. Perhaps difference is a reminder of this. Of how much we have to shift and evolve... Of how we must learn to be compassionate...
What could be worse than a person having to deny themselves the love and affection they need?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:The problem is society. A child with an abiguous gender would be teased unmercilessly throughout school. Therefore, children need to be taught not to tease people and to except difference.
I'll assume you meant accept instead of except, and reply.
This is a completely un-workable idea. Yes, they should be taught to not tease. Yes, they should be taught to be kind.
But it takes a long time for children to learn that. In fact, by the time they learn that, they are usually called adults and not children.
Parents can try to teach children to behave civilized, but children are born barbarians. Civilization is not easy to foist upon children.
My point is that no matter how hard the parents try to teach their kids to not do so, they would still probably be merciless to a genderless child.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote: God allowing suffering that is unnecessary.
Syn, I don't believe He does. But just as a caring parent will allow things to be done to their children (immunizations come immediately to mind) that cause short-term pain for a long-term benefit, so does He. It's very hard for us to see that bigger picture, often. And some choose to close their minds off to that possibility.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote: What could be worse than a person having to deny themselves the love and affection they need?
Who is forcing them? If they don't believe in a particular church's teachings, they are not forced to follow them, at least not in any church I can think of. Of course, it is true that a practicing homosexual would be denied certain insubstantial priviledges in the LDS church, like temple worship. But if they didn't believe there was anything wrong with homosexual relations, they probably wouldn't believe in the things upon which the temple is based anyway since genders and their divine roles are pretty key to all of it.
If they truly believe it though, they would either follow those beliefs, difficult as that may be, or live in opposition to their beliefs which is not a happy feeling. But again, they don't have to believe anything they don't want to believe. The choice still lies with them.
Now, if I have a child who is homosexual, I will teach them my beliefs on the matter. Some would think that doing so is terrible and causing the child heaps of undue suffering. That is a matter of perspective. From my point of view, I am teaching them Truth and the ultimate suffering will be in their denying it. I recognize that whether or not they believe that is up to them.
I think that it is possible to be compassionate and yet still hold such beliefs as I do. After all, I believe God holds these beliefs and is deeply compassionate. Some say "Love the sinner hate the sin" is a myth. I think *that* is a myth. It may not be easy, but it is certainly possible.
In my mind the only harm I am causing to such individuals is by stating what I believe. I do so in as inoffensive a way as I possibly can, but I make a point to be up front and open about it. I do not think that is uncompassionate.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Thank you, Rivka. I agree very much with what you said.
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
MPH,
There was a thread just a little while back that made it clear that a lot of us share a common experience of schools doing very little to interfere with bullying. In fact, in my own personal case, two out of the three times I actually shoved back in a situation I ended up in the principal's office. (the third time was a more complicated story and involved something that went beyond normal bullying and teasing - way beyond.)
I don't know if we know what can be done in schools anyway, since I haven't seen one personally that really pays attention to the issue in any kind of comprehensive way.
Personally, I fully support facing the world as it is - I also believe that change is possible, but it's hard and frustrating work.
bev -- I know a number of people in the Deaf community and you've done a great job of describing their worldview. Unfortunately, due to my poor motor memory, I have mastered very little sign language. Most of what I do retain was taught to me by a guy with Down syndrome who lived at a group home I worked at.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Sndrake: I took 4 semesters of ASL in college, but I have retained sadly little of it.
When I was a proselyting missionary in the Philippines, I encountered many deaf who, from what I could tell, were using something very close to ASL. I remember sitting down with a group of them and teaching. My ASL was pretty shaky by then. It was an interesting experience. I also met a wonderful deaf young lady who became very attached to me, but I was constantly frustrated by my inability to effectively communicate with her.
I really ought to refresh my ASL. It is such a beautiful language.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote: Then I realize it is people who cause this suffering. People who make these rules against gayness or make it harder for people who are different.
Where there is "unnecessary" suffering, it is always caused by people. Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
sndrake - I wasn't talking about how the schools behave. All of the things that are really important to learn cannot be taught at school anyway. I was talking about the teaching that comes from the parents.
Good, kind parents can do their best to teach their children to be good and kind, but some of them will still be mean and cruel and childish until they grow out of it.
Posted by Phanto (Member # 5897) on :
Gender is the first and strongest division and stereotype we impose on anyone. Case in point, "Is it a girl or boy?"
The second--the very second--the child comes into the world, before even the name is given, we proclaim its gender.
No wonder we find it so difficult to accept intersexuality. We can't accept anything that disrupts our worldview.
What humans can't accept, they destroy. Indians, blacks (well, we enslaved them), Jews, Armenians, intersexed people.
The only way out for intersexed people is to accept one gender and go with it. The sooner this choice is made, the less hateful death and scorn that is sent there way.
Which is why these doctors feel so much pressure. The child has to be categorized, it has to. The only question is, Male or Female?
Posted by fallow (Member # 6268) on :
quote:What humans can't accept, they destroy. Indians, blacks (well, we enslaved them), Jews, Armenians, intersexed people.
err.. phanto?
fallow
Posted by Phanto (Member # 5897) on :
?
Posted by fallow (Member # 6268) on :
phanto,
who are the "we" and who are the "humans" in that quote?
not to be too PC, but your grammatical assumptions might do with a bit of challenge.
fallow
Posted by Phanto (Member # 5897) on :
We = humanity as a whole. Obviously it isn't colored people who decided to enslave themselves et cetra.
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
quote:What humans can't accept, they destroy. Indians, blacks (well, we enslaved them), Jews, Armenians, intersexed people.
The only way out for intersexed people is to accept one gender and go with it. The sooner this choice is made, the less hateful death and scorn that is sent there way.
Uh, I guess by this logic Jews should all convert to Christianity????
Really, you ought to read the website that syn linked to and check out the related sites. Doesn't it make more sense to find out what intersexed people think is best for themselves? Posted by fallow (Member # 6268) on :
phanto,
this really isn't my schtick. I thought your opinionated composition might have deserved some POV reflection.
you are correct, colonel.
fallow
Posted by Phanto (Member # 5897) on :
sndrake: I wasn't saying that because humanity is this way, interesexed people have to do this. I was saying humans are cruel.
I wasn't condoning the action.
I don't see how you could get that out of my post.
Posted by ak (Member # 90) on :
Ah, from the article it looked like the doctors said it might help. Not necessarily that it was necessary. Is there evidence that it can help certain conditions? I thought that was pretty sketchy as well, and that doctors sort of recommended it by default in a sort of "it can't hurt" kind of way, again, mainly because it is customary in our culture and not for any real proven scientific reasons.
[ June 07, 2004, 12:30 AM: Message edited by: ak ]
Posted by Space Opera (Member # 6504) on :
How sad. When I was a TA for a freshman english class in college, we studied David. After the section, the students had to write a paper explaining what they would do if they had a transgendered child. 100 percent of them said that they would refuse to allow gender to be assigned. I think David's story has taught/informed many people. It's simply tragic what happened to him.
space opera
Posted by fallow (Member # 6268) on :
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
::pat pat::
Posted by Mabus (Member # 6320) on :
Am I the only one who finds this story disturbing to their worldview, or am I just the only one who's bothered to post?
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
Mab, I always thought gender was about which half of the chromosones you had. Girls have eggs, boys have sperm. All the other question confuse me. But then, I prefer earth sciences to social sciences.
I guess my real question is, what ends up happening to the hermaphrodites if you leave both sets of sex organs on them? Do they produce testosterone and estrogen in equal amounts or does the body naturally favor one over the other?
Posted by Phanto (Member # 5897) on :
Well?
Posted by Phanto (Member # 5897) on :
I would like an explanation, please. Either that or an apology.
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
The actual gender part I get. Biologically speaking, either you have eggs or sperm. They're the only two known sex cells in any known species. If you produce eggs, you're biologically female. If you produce sperm, you're biologically male.
The gender identity part I've never understood and people screaming "leave us alone, we're normal" doesn't help me understand what they're talking about. I'm not being rude, I just don't understand the concept.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
To clear things up a tiny amount (hopefully):
Sex is what you are biologically, pure and simple (ha! I wish. this is often very complicated. don't forget, a lot of people who have oddly developed sex organs can produce neither eggs nor sperm, and chromosomal arrangement is not a completely accurate indicator in those who can, though it is a very high correlation).
Gender is how you feel you are. Its a very nebulous thing -- some guys act very feminine, but still feel male, while others are rather masculine, but feel female. Why do people get to choose this? Because there's no good reason why not.
Sexuality is who you're attracted to -- members of the same gender or the opposite gender, or both, or neither, or something else entirely.
Cross dressing is a clothing preference that is often, but hardly exclusively, expressed by trans-gendered people. Lots of people who follow traditional sex, gender, and sexuality models are cross dressers.
[ June 08, 2004, 08:39 AM: Message edited by: fugu13 ]
Posted by skrika03 (Member # 5930) on :
Phanto, I don't know who you are demanding apology/explanation from, but:
quote: We = humanity as a whole. Obviously it isn't colored people who decided to enslave themselves et cetra.
When you define humanity as the set of people who persecute the "other", you underscore the non-humanity of the "other.
AK- the couple did not choose circumcision at birth, but after multiple UTIs the decided to go with circumcision. Maybe not medically "necessary" but probably in most doctor's minds at least indicated. It's weird, I didn't realize OSC wrote an article about elective surgeries on Ornery. Messing around with our bodies Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Wow, one of those rare articles that I agree with OSC 100%.
AJ
Posted by Phanto (Member # 5897) on :
The following two posts that seem to paint me as a hateful bas****.
quote: quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- What humans can't accept, they destroy. Indians, blacks (well, we enslaved them), Jews, Armenians, intersexed people.
The only way out for intersexed people is to accept one gender and go with it. The sooner this choice is made, the less hateful death and scorn that is sent there way.
Uh, I guess by this logic Jews should all convert to Christianity????
Really, you ought to read the website that syn linked to and check out the related sites. Doesn't it make more sense to find out what intersexed people think is best for themselves?
quote: phanto,
this really isn't my schtick. I thought your opinionated composition might have deserved some POV reflection.
you are correct, colonel.
fallow
skrika03:
quote: When you define humanity as the set of people who persecute the "other", you underscore the non-humanity of the "other.
I define humanity (among other things) as being comprised of people who will, under the right circusmtances, act hatefuly and destroy anything that scares them.
[ June 08, 2004, 06:13 PM: Message edited by: Phanto ]
Posted by Phanto (Member # 5897) on :
Well?
Posted by Mabus (Member # 6320) on :
Phanto, I don't know where Skrika has gone (she doesn't post very often, I think), but I might say something like that, meaning only that the persecuted groups, though part of humanity, have not had the opportunity to persecute others as often. They too are human, and share the human tendency to persecute--they just haven't had the power.
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
See, you can't base gender on what you are attracted to, it just starts to get ridiculous.![[Smile]](smile.gif)
I took 4 semesters of ASL in college, but I have retained sadly little of it. ![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Cry]](graemlins/cry.gif)