Shurs said:This is tricky.
I'm all for people being who they want (or even need) to be, but that is such a young age to make a life-changing decision like that.
That said, it's obviously not my place to tell the parents and child what to do in this situation.
mrklaw said:I'm confused/curious about the 'delaying puberty' thing. Wouldn't the onset of puberty and the hormonal changes that includes, have at least some affect on how your sexual identity is formed? Or at least magnify what is already there to help you understand it? I guess its wobbly ground as I don't fully understand it, plus gender isn't the same as sexual orientation (could want to be a girl but end up a lesbian for example)
Zaptruder said:But if we are to rationally assess the situation, as you would do when you are faced with the issue first hand and have time to make a decision; of the available options; forcing gender reassignment before puberty to allow for the best long term physical outcome, but also before the child had fully resolved the issue; letting the child deal with it naturally, letting the issue become double complicated with the presence of physique changing hormones which would result in a poor long term physical outcome, or giving the child additional time to resolve the gender issue naturally, by chemically delaying the onset of puberty - the best choice in the immediate and long term interest of the child was chosen.
So... you haven't read the thread. Cool.JGS said:Read the article (Have no idea why people are banned since I don't look back on a big thread. Hopefully it wasn't because they agreed with a lot of the experts in the article. Quite frankly, the title still appears misleading).
Couldn't care less whether the parents forced it or the kid wants it, the parents should wait. Spend the time and effort helping the kid to come to terms with what they feel so that the child will feel more comfortable when they make the supposedly obvious choice at adulthood.
Solo said:disgonnabegood.gif
Nope, but read the article though which would seem paramount.Dead Man said:So... you haven't read the thread. Cool.
bill gonorrhea said:
"See, you can choose to be gay"
Zaptruder said:It *is* such a young age to make such a life changing decision. The parents, the kid and all the professionals agreed.
So they sought to give the kid more time to make the decision through the none-permanent process of chemically delaying the onset of puberty.
I understand where the knee jerk crowd is coming from... they're operating on some pretty standard heuristics.
Chemicals = bad
Screwing around with natural development = bad
ergo, using chemicals to screw around with natural development is double bad.
Of course those ideas are also conflated with subconcious negative associations with lesbians and transgendered issues...
But if we are to rationally assess the situation, as you would do when you are faced with the issue first hand and have time to make a decision; of the available options; forcing gender reassignment before puberty to allow for the best long term physical outcome, but also before the child had fully resolved the issue; letting the child deal with it naturally, letting the issue become double complicated with the presence of physique changing hormones which would result in a poor long term physical outcome, or giving the child additional time to resolve the gender issue naturally, by chemically delaying the onset of puberty - the best choice in the immediate and long term interest of the child was chosen.
Green Scar said:This is why I only discuss trivialities on the Internet
Solo was right, lol
LA Times said:According to the paper, which appears in the journal Pediatrics, almost 25% of African American girls have reached a stage of breast development marking the onset of puberty by age 7, as had almost 15% of Latina girls and more than 10% of white girls.
Those percentages are significantly higher than in 1997, when a landmark study first reported that girls were beginning puberty much younger than they had in the mid-20th century. In that study, the rate of girls who had begun puberty at age 7 was, on average, 5% for whites, compared with 10.4% in the new study.
Economist said:The last 200 years have seen a big drop in the age of puberty in the West. In the Leipzig choir directed by J.S. Bach in the 1700s, the average age of voice break, a late marker of male puberty, was around 18. Between the mid-19th and mid-20th century, the average age for girls having their first period in America and northern Europe dropped from 17 to under 14.
Yeah but it's fox news, so it's spun as "gay parents = bad parents."Sutton Dagger said:THIS.
I don't know how many times it has been explained in this thread, but please read this post regarding the hormone blocking and its implications.
Are you one of those people that looks up the plot of a film on IMDB before you watch it?Angry Fork said:Why were so many people banned? About to read through the thread now but did this thread turn into an insult war back and forth or something?
Looks like black Cheney.subversus said:damn, this face!
Says who? You?Live Free or Die said:People are crazy. You can't change your gender.
mrklaw said:hopefully the bans were short, there were a ton of good posters just on the first page...
and their initial posts didn't seem hyperbolic or outrageous, I can only guess they got sucked in by the 'discussion'.
Zaptruder said:It *is* such a young age to make such a life changing decision. The parents, the kid and all the professionals agreed.
So they sought to give the kid more time to make the decision through the none-permanent process of chemically delaying the onset of puberty.
I understand where the knee jerk crowd is coming from... they're operating on some pretty standard heuristics.
Chemicals = bad
Screwing around with natural development = bad
ergo, using chemicals to screw around with natural development is double bad.
Of course those ideas are also conflated with subconcious negative associations with lesbians and transgendered issues...
But if we are to rationally assess the situation, as you would do when you are faced with the issue first hand and have time to make a decision; of the available options; forcing gender reassignment before puberty to allow for the best long term physical outcome, but also before the child had fully resolved the issue; letting the child deal with it naturally, letting the issue become double complicated with the presence of physique changing hormones which would result in a poor long term physical outcome, or giving the child additional time to resolve the gender issue naturally, by chemically delaying the onset of puberty - the best choice in the immediate and long term interest of the child was chosen.
rofl. fair enough I'll read the thread first hopefully it's entertaining.SmokyDave said:Are you one of those people that looks up the plot of a film on IMDB before you watch it?
FrontalMonk said:staying on topic, good on the parents for giving the kid time to come around to this decision. I'm pretty sure Tammy will go through with the rest of the treatment though. I don't think gender identity isn't something that flip flops a whole lot. You either know in your heart of hearts that you're a boy or you're a girl.
GoutPatrol said:You've read what they've said. Are they really "good" posters? Being completely ignorant about transgender people in general? Believing a Fox News article as straight fact in the first place? It seems that too many people get their information on the topic from Mr. Garrison from South Park.
The article makes it sound like there's a strong chance the child would become a real suicide risk if they went through puberty.mrklaw said:but aren't they artificially giving the child time? Isn't puberty part of growing up and part of understanding your identity? Removing that from the child's life is removing a key input to help them understand who they want to be.
Orayn said:Says who? You?
Electivirus said:Out of curiosity, what WAS the thread title before the change?
Wow, is that some kind of record? I've never seen so much gray in one thread. It's especially weird now that the inaccurate title has been changed.EmCeeGramr said:
lawblob said:Interesting article. Sounds like the kid's gender issues are fairly legit, but man, allowing a child that young to make such a life-altering decision seems very questionable.
I have a cousin, male, who is now 19. He similarly acted like a girl as a child, going so far as to say that he "wanted to be a girl," wanted to exclusively play with "girl" toys, dress as a girl, etc. He is now 21, nice kid, attending college on a singing scholarship. Because his family is strict Mormons, and he is active, it's impossible to know if he is still dealing with gender / sexuality issues, but I would assume so.
But man, I just don't know about allowing a child that young to make such a permanent, life-changing decision. Can't say I support those parents.
This is how I feel about it to be honest. Puberty is a rough period for everyone, of all genders. But to push off till a later date, who knows when that will, when the kid decides on which gender to go with and then getting the child off the chemicals when he's made the transition just sounds very concerning to me. What if he has second thoughts after actually experiencing puberty?mrklaw said:but aren't they artificially giving the child time? Isn't puberty part of growing up and part of understanding your identity? Removing that from the child's life is removing a key input to help them understand who they want to be.
Gaborn said:It's not like it's solely the kid's decision. It's the kid, the parents, and the therapists. This is something that has taken years. And all they're doing at this point is using hormone blockers to give the kid and the rest of them more time to make sure they make the right decision.
My brotha is gone, there is now a big open void in my lifeEmCeeGramr said:PhoenixDark