What’s Wrong with the World

When I was 11 I wanted plastic surgery so I'd look like Mr. Spock. Cooler heads prevailed.

I simply threw up my hands in despair when I read about it so there was no point in mentioning it or getting exercised. What they've done is an almost unforgivable sin. But there's a lot of that going around. The arrogant self-righteousness of so many people nowadays shocks the conscience.

My despair also stems from the fact that Gender Identity Disorder in boys is an easily treatable matter when they are small. One psychologist simply has a father take his boy out to a field and learn to kick a ball. After a year of sports activity like that, he becomes a normal boy.

This article discusses some of the matter in detail. I can't find the original article about the simple therapy, though, from Mercator.net.

http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/view/experimenting_with_childrens_sexual_identity/

I want to say "God help us", but he can't protect us from ourselves. He can only save those that want saving.

Mark, thanks for the link. The article's message dovetails with the news yesterday about a new study showing that change in sexual orientation is definitely possible for some, even as adults:

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/major-study-changing-sexual-orientation-is-possible

The authors note that the study overcomes a primary criticism of same-sex attraction (SSA) therapy data - that the results are not adequately documented over a period of time - by assessing its 98 candidates over a period of six to seven years after therapy concluded.

Jones and Yarhouse’s results show the majority of candidates were successful in their goal of changing sexual orientation, and that the attempt was not harmful on average.

Of the original 98 subjects, 61 were successfully categorized for general outcome at the last assessment. Fifty-three percent were categorized as successful outcomes; specifically, 23 percent reported success in the form of an essential change to heterosexual orientation and functioning, while an additional 30 percent reported no longer identifying as homosexual while maintaining stable behavioral chastity. At the six-year mark, 20 percent reported fully embracing a gay self-identification.

On the advice of former contributer Professer Feser I recently read Mark Anderson's "Pure, Mondernity, Philosophy and the One". Near the start of the Book Mr Anderson suggests that we replace modern democracy with a true aristoricy/philosopher king, indeed if we take the true meaning of aristocricy to its logical conclusion we must inevitably submit to the Reign of Christ the King.

Although Islam is a false religion it seems that Ayatollah Khomeini succesfully implimented such a form of governemnt in Iran, the failure of the Iranian regime has been to mercilessly crackdown on protestors, not realising that the truest form of victory is for your enemies see the error of their ways in resisting in the first place.

Jack,
A book endorsing a philosopher-king endorsed by a philosopher -- that's the defense against great perversity?

Fallen human nature (not our methods of voting, of representation, and of policy making) is the problem. Having a philosopher-king fixes nothing. The philosopher-king has the same enduring problem in himself that he's trying to suppress in others (and "suppress," with all its attendant horrors, is the right word in this context). That the philosopher-king thinks himself wise enough to rule in this fashion proves what a fool he is, and how foolish we'd be to accede to his rule. It's as if you, Ed, and Mark Anderson never met a real-life philosopher. They won't and they can't cure what ails us. Taking resort to a philosopher-king is like putting a nicotine-addicted, alcoholic, glutton in charge of health.

Mention of the ayatollah and of Iranian suppression hardly advances your thesis. Tacking the name of Jesus to it at the end is a shocking non sequitur.

The philosophic impulse, like everything else about us, is fallen.

Michael, I can just feel the anger coming off that post when I read it. Sadly, it makes little sense in context with the topic at hand. If I had to read the sneering "philosopher king" one more time I was sure I would flip. Flesh out your point a bit more this time without the sneers.

Just for purposes of clarity, I gather that there is a difference between men who experience same-sex desires and men who "think they are really a woman" and want to undergo sex-change.

Jeff, I have to say: Though I don't have the link that I received to the news story on hand, heterosexual parents do this to their children as well. The story I saw recently was about a boy, age ten, who "lives as a girl" (they call him Jackie) and whose parents are seriously considering hormone therapy for him to prevent his going through normal male puberty. The parents are just completely clueless. They acted like it was really meaningful that this otherwise physically normal little boy somehow "really is" a girl. The grandfather is somewhat bothered by all this, but of course it isn't up to him. It was a horribly sad story.

I tried, too, to imagine being a teacher at this boy's school and forcing the little girls to use all the female facilities with the boy. Does the local Y have to let him shower with the girls before swimming class?

They are not sneers, Tim. They are the truth about us and our philosophy. That truth is ugly, and it will not fix, or even curb, the shocking evil that Jeff has pointed out in this posting.

And what you call "anger" isn't. It's strong opposition and forthright diction.

Michael B

Whilst I agree that Fallan human nature is the cause of the problem it is my contention that the idea of the Philosopher king or more accurately a true Aristocracy i.e. the rule of the best qualified citizens (checks and balances) is preferable to the rule of the mob, it is this system of government that has allowed sodomites via appeals to emotion to engineer the depravity that we see today.

Now as for attching the Holy name to such a form of government, it must be noted that Our Lord and Saviour as King of the Universe through right and conquest as well as being Divine is the best qualified person to rule us.

As for the Church-State issues that arise I'm afraid we will have to differ, I believe that it is the duty of the State to acknowledge the Truth of the Catholic Faith and to promote said Faith through all means at its disposal save violence, i.e. through the education system.

Now as to how this prevents depravity, such a society would neccesarlly leglislate against depravity and through its education system encourage Godly behaviour, is it foolproof? NO, I imagine that even at truely Catholic Institutions such as Belmont Abbey Collage and Christondom Collage where virtue is taught some students will fornicate, but at the very least it will reverse some of the ungodliness of the past 60-70 years.

When I was 11 I wanted plastic surgery so I'd look like Mr. Spock. Cooler heads prevailed.

That is the funniest semi-off-topic comment I've ever read.

And the reason Bill White's comment is so great is because in a sense it's _on-topic_. If parents have some notion of human nature and normalcy, they _guide_ their children into healthy behaviors and plans for their lives.

What nobody seems to notice is that the moral legitimacy of this whole "sex change" experiment hangs upon a radical Cartesian theory of the self. It rests on the idea that my body is inessential to who I am, because my "true self" is who I "feel" that I really am at the psychological level. This is absurd. The psychologist Oliver Sacks describes someone who suffered from "alien limb" syndrome, and who felt as if their right leg was not part of their body. They kept throwing it out of the bed. What is the right way to deal with this patient? Correct their mistaken beliefs about their body through psychological intervention, or amputate their leg so that their "true self" can at last be whole? If you said "correct their mistaken beliefs", you understand the absurdity of "sex changism". Someone has a male body but thinks they are female. What should we do? Possible answers: a)try to correct the psychological disconnect between mind and body b)mutilate the body and pump it full of alien hormones until the mind and body disconnect seems to go away.

And as I keep saying in other contexts (PVS patients, for example), I _am_ a Cartesian, and I think this is all totally crazy.

Let's face it: Believing that sci-fi ideas ("so-and-so is a woman trapped in a man's body") are in some sense _logically possible_ (as Ariel was trapped in the oak) doesn't mean that one takes them seriously as realities in the world. I also don't take seriously the existence of crystal beings, talking rocks, "group minds," or any of a gazillion other ideas that come up in science fiction.

But some people literally treat little children according to out-of-touch-with-reality scenarios. It's frightening.

Lydia

Whilst I'm sure that there are many Christians who are also Cartesians and think that this is crazy I don't think that is the point untenured is making.
I think (and he is free to correct me) that he is making the point that once one abandons Aristotelian-Thomism that it is harder to justify traditional morality from a philosophical point of view. Therefore we must appeal to God to justify Traditional Morality; fine if you come from a denomination that holds a conservative view of scripture but not if you are either an atheist or a liberal denomination.

The problem (as Dr Feser has pointed out in his published work) is that once one drops Scholasticism then arguing for God's existence and the natural law becomes harder not only because of the questions of epistemology raised by the Cartesian worldview, but also because of the various paradoxes which his brand of dualism entails. If we are to return to being able to justify traditional morality then it follows that we must go back to Aristotle and Aquinas.

I know there's a lot wrong with the world, but how about some beauty and goodness for a change? I just spent ten minutes writing a lovely meditation on evil being only for the day, but mercy (a form of beauty, no?) being meant to endure forever and I erased it all with the push of a button, sigh. I can't stand up much, today - sinus migraine and its aftermath, so I'm typing from a cell phone lying down. These women are spitting in Beauty's face - the beauty of an innocent child and a right order. Christ, when he said to take no thought for the morrow, did not mean not to consider the future, but rather not to drag today's evil into it. Beauty and goodness await us if only we will look forward to them. These women will not wait for beauty. They want their consolation, now. They would rather mutilate the present to create their own hiddeous monster and pin the label, 'Beauty,' to it, then to even consider a beauty they don't own. Oh, if they could only see beauty, just once, they would fall to their knees and repent. Mr. God, please show them beauty. Show them yourself.

My apologies. When I read stories like this, the only thing I can do is pray.

Now, give a prone Chicken something to warm his heart, eh? Just don't make it Chicken soup for the soul - cannibalism is a sin, you know...

The Chicken

@Jack:

I basically agree with you, but I would press it further. I actually think the Cartesian is the one who has the hardest time explaining why this is wrong at a philosophical level. The pure materialist can just say that we are are bodies, and since our bodies are sex-differentiated, we are essentially male or female. But, if I am a res cogitans, then I am essentially a *mind* and only accidentally attached to some region of matter. On this view, it is entirely possible that I am "really" a girl, but "stuck" inside a man's body. This is because I am, on the Cartesian view, a psychological female and a "merely" biological male. And as a res cogitans my psychological "self" is my "true self". Hence, we must mutilate the body and pump it full of hormones in order to correct the tragic mismatch between mind and matter than nature has inflicted upon me.

Now, I know Lydia will disagree. And I hate to disagree with Lydia, because we see eye-to-eye on most things. But in this matter, I really think that there is no way for the Cartesian to say that these actions are *intrinsically* wrong. There might, on her theory, be excellent theological or moral reasons to abhor this abomination, but I don't think they can be derived from her Cartesian theory of mind. And, smart as she is, she may just prove me wrong.

And, as a final aside, isn't it ironic that the orthodoxy among practicing psychologists and psychiatrists is some kind of materialism, and yet they cling tenaciously to this radically dualistic understanding of the self? C.S. Lewis described the diabolical deception of the "materialist magician". We are now witnessing the diabolical deception of the "Cartesian physicalist"

@Untenured

Good point about the difficulty the cartesian faces.

Yes I do find it amusing that one hand psychologists and psychiatrists adhere to materialism yet contradict themselves by accepting that the mind exists, it is almost as amusing as dawkings et al claiming that there is no right and wrong yet claiming that parents passing on their religious beliefs is tanamount to child abuse.

oh the insanity of the times in which we live

And, as a final aside, isn't it ironic that the orthodoxy among practicing psychologists and psychiatrists is some kind of materialism, and yet they cling tenaciously to this radically dualistic understanding of the self?

Bingo. I say this and say this and say this. On a recent post I called it an "I Hate Descartes" caricature (apropos of people in a long-term comatose state).

Untenured, briefly (I'm exceedingly hungry as a result of the interaction of mind and body and have to go get some supper), but I think the key is here:

On this view, it is entirely possible that I am "really" a girl, but "stuck" inside a man's body.

As I hinted above, it depends on what you mean by "entirely possible." If you merely mean "logically possible," this seems to me rather trivial. It is also logically possible that I am really physically located on the planet Mars, being sustained within a biosphere by mad scientists, and having all my experiences produced for me. (This isn't even ruled out by hylemorphism, as far as I can see!) It's logically possible that I will be transmogrified tomorrow by Calvin's transmogrifier machine into a person with a human mind having the body of a bear. It's logically possible that my beloved husband is a mastermind of crime with super-psi powers who selectively erases any memories I would otherwise accumulate that would betray him. (This is also not ruled out by hylemorphism.)

Lots of things are _logically_ possible. But we usually don't use the term "entirely possible" for every such thing, especially for things that are _in fact_ crazy.

I think it's entirely possible for a non-hylemorphist dualist to believe in human nature, to believe that it's natural for men to have bodies, and to believe that male and female souls are importantly related to male and female bodies. And I think it's possible to figure this out by common sense, aka the natural light. In fact, it seems like most people _do_ figure it out by common sense.

Untenured: “What nobody seems to notice is that the moral legitimacy of this whole "sex change" experiment hangs upon a radical Cartesian theory of the self. It rests on the idea that my body is inessential to who I am, because my "true self" is who I "feel" that I really am at the psychological level …”

And, yet, is not the whole “sex-change” industry premised on the idea that if you change the body, you change the self?

I can't help pointing out that the so-called "Cartesianism" promoted by people who accept this nonsense about a "girl in a boy's body" is totally undeveloped, and if it were developed, it would sound even stupider than it does. (If that's possible.) Let's assume we're talking about a non-Christian form of "Cartesianism." Okay, then, where are these "female souls" coming from, and who is "putting" them into male bodies? How is this happening? It's not like these people actually want to promote the idea of some sort of Malevolent Deity out there deliberately implanting female souls into male bodies when children are conceived.

Let's face it, this is a case of poor philosophy better thought of as non-philosophy--flakiness extraordinaire. Souls just floating around out there and somehow, no one knows how, accidentally getting themselves "trapped" in the "wrong" body.

It's a bit like Michael Schiavo giving us all this detritus about how Terri's soul left her body when she suffered her severe injury. Really? Where did it go? Did God take her to heaven? With little cherubs floating around her, maybe?

It's like Hallmark Meets Zombieland.

Just for purposes of clarity, I gather that there is a difference between men who experience same-sex desires and men who "think they are really a woman" and want to undergo sex-change.

There is a distinction, but I'm not so sure about a difference. There are homosexuals who are not transvestites, but are there transvestites who are not homosexual? (Nevermind. Steve, please don't answer that.)

Jeff, I have to say: Though I don't have the link that I received to the news story on hand, heterosexual parents do this to their children as well.

Yes, I know. We probably read the same story a few months back.

@Lydia:

I don't want to turn this into a philosophy of mind threadjack, so I'll just say that the case for Cartesian dualism seems to require inferences from logical possibility to metaphysical possibility. It is not clear that the Cartesian can accept the distinction between logical and metaphysical possibility without invalidating the key arguments in favor of the theory.

That said, if I can really be a "man" trapped in a woman's body because I perceive myself as male, why is it only the gender confused who have a claim to social approval? If I go off my gourd and perceive myself to be George Washington, isn't it horribly repressive for mainstream society to refuse to call me Mr. President and let me live at Mt. Vernon? What I really am George Washington trapped in some poor Untenured's body? Why won't they let me be my true self?

That said, if I can really be a "man" trapped in a woman's body because I perceive myself as male, why is it only the gender confused who have a claim to social approval? If I go off my gourd and perceive myself to be George Washington, isn't it horribly repressive for mainstream society to refuse to call me Mr. President and let me live at Mt. Vernon? What I really am George Washington trapped in some poor Untenured's body? Why won't they let me be my true self?

I completely agree. I think all of these are forms of insanity, of mental illness. Doctors who cooperate with them by doing things to people's bodies should lose their licenses.

We've had discussions before about people who think they are really amputees and arrange to have limbs medically removed. Like Lydia suggested, if the average doctor was asked to perform one of these, the first thing he would do is refer them for psychological treatment. But when it is in the sexual realm see the complete inversion of common sense.

P.S. I recall an episode of Firing Line in which noted gasbag Alan Dershowitz said he wanted a state in which every child was given the opportunity to break away from the religion they were raised in. Sadly, no one offered a quip about giving every child an opportunity to break away from Alan's windy secular progressivism, but this looks like a great example to apply short of doing the sensible thing and barring these adoptions in the first place.

Like Lydia suggested, if the average doctor was asked to perform one of these, the first thing he would do is refer them for psychological treatment. But when it is in the sexual realm see the complete inversion of common sense.

Maybe the average doctor, but actually, there are doctors who perform these amputations. I don't know the statistics--that is, I don't know whether it is harder or easier to find a doctor who will agree to major sexual modifications of a patient's body than to find a doctor who will amputate when a patient has Body Identity Disorder (the thing about feeling like your limb doesn't belong to you). They _might_ be about on a par now.

Which is I suppose a way of saying that the world has gone completely crazy, not only in the realm of sex.

The Daily Mail piece to which you link is an almost unbelievably incompetent piece of reporting.

Who? What? When? Where? Why?

How did this poor little effeminate orphan boy get farmed out to a couple of prototypical diesel-dyke jewesses -- in 2002?

Without further details & substantiation, I'm just not buying it.

If you google "Thomas Lobel," you will come up with plenty of hits, including one to a site I'd rather not link that includes, embedded, a CNN story on the same situation. It does not appear that the Daily Mail piece is the only source. Not quite sure what it is you don't believe, Steve, but this does not appear to be a hoax. The boy has been adopted by these women, he's being treated with the hormones via that hospital, which has a special unit for "transgender children," and so on and so forth.

However, just supposing:

"That an 8-year old boy, on his own supposed initiative, can legally undergo sex-change 'hormone therapy' in California is just staggering insanity."

Totally agreed. Can he?

"The fact that 'doctors' in California are free to sexually destroy this child without fear of legal consequences is an unfathomable crime itself."

If that is a fact, then I agree that it is an "unfathomable crime."

"That these two witches are legally free, not only to flout their depravities openly, but also to corrupt a young boy in this way - well, there are no words."

Really? You have no words? How about: "shoot them?"

But is all this true?

Steve, I don't quite get it. Numerous news reports confirm that he's undergoing this hormone therapy _right now_ at the University of California San Francisco. This isn't just hypothetical.

OK, apparently it's true:

http://www.cnn.com/2011/09/27/health/transgender-kids/index.html

So how did this happen? How did this poor kid end up in the charge of a pair of lesbians?

I don't know what you mean. They adopted him. Adoption agencies in some jurisdictions are punished outright if they won't place children with same-sex couples. In other jurisdictions the adoption industry has simply accepted the idea that this is acceptable. Of course the state foster agencies do. No mystery about it, really. There are lots of kids in foster care needing homes; they were willing to adopt.

At the risk of thread-jacking, in the UK a Christian couple has been *turned away* from being foster parents (and I would imagine the UK will apply the same criteria to would-be adoptive families) because they will not teach children that homosexual acts are normal. So someone might well ask of some kid in the UK, "How did he end up adopted by a pair of Christians?" and the question would make more sense in terms of what the state agencies are actually doing than, "How did he end up with a pair of lesbians?"

Not that this child is British. But I cannot doubt that similar standards prevail in Berkeley, California.

"Totally agreed. Can he?"

No, he can't, at least according to the various stories. As I read them, the present treatment blocks puberty until his early to mid teens at which point the kid will be in a better position to decide. I would be very surprised if actual surgery would be performed on a minor and if he elected hormones in his mid teens, i'd assume any competent doctor would have multiple psych hoops jumped through. If he decides to remain male, all he needs to do, it seems, is stop taking the blocking hormones and nature will take its course.

"prototypical diesel-dyke jewesses -- in 2002?"

Anti-Semitism -- in 2011?

oh, al - you think that the phrase "prototypical diesel-dyke jewesses" was anti-semitic?

Get with the program, dude. It was *homophobic*.

Actually I think it was sexist, homophobic, and anti-Semitic.

"...the present treatment blocks puberty until his early to mid teens at which point the kid will be in a better position to decide..."

Ah, I see...well, clearly, a boy in his mid-teens who has had the onset of puberty chemically blocked will be in an absolutely *terrific* position to decide whether or not he wants his genitals amputated.

Do advocates of transsexualism really need to be bogged down by the idea that a woman can be trapped in a man's body and vice-versa? Isn't it sufficient from a utilitarian perspective, which is the perspective of many moderns, that a man would be happier (satisfy more of his desires and/or achieve a more desirable balance between pleasure and pain) if he lived as a woman typically would and received physical treatments that helped him transition into a more feminized body? This view does have some evidential support, going down to the biological level: http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2011/01/26/scans-show-difference-in-transgender-brains/

I'm not saying that transsexualism is morally permissible, but I do think we have to reconstruct the arguments in its favor in the most charitable light possible.

I should add that this case is obviously a travesty, but is no more representative of transsexual advocacy than young earth creationism is of Christianity - there are diverse positions, and this seems rather atypical.

Yep, John H., and Young Earth Creationists have a "model program" at a large state university hospital where they give children hormonal medical treatment that changes their bodies and makes them more likely to accept Young Earth Creationism. Oh. Wait.

And of course, John H., there are ordinances requiring employers to speak of the earth as young when dealing with YECs (just as there are ordinances requiring employers to call and treat their biologically male employees who "identify" as a woman entirely as women) lest they be charged with discrimination. Oh. Wait. There aren't.

Please. _Of course_ the "trans" position is that these people are "really" women or "really" men. That is _precisely_ how it is sold to the public, across the board. I went to numerous meetings on a "trans rights" (among other things) ordinance in my local town, meetings filled to the brim with articulate and highly educated people advocating the "trans rights" position, and yes, this was their position.

@John H:

I don't see any problematic misrepresentation here. Even if we augment the transsexualist position with some fMRI scans, it still presupposes that psychology is determinative of personal identity and not biology. Moreover, I seriously doubt there are any persistent deviant conditions that wouldn't engender neurophysiological changes that could then be used as "evidence" that this is "who the person really is". Imagine: "News flash! Brain scans prove that alcoholics have profound neurochemical differences, and like to drink more than social drinkers! This is "who they really are"! Tell all those self-hating ethanophiles in A.A. to love who they are and get back out to the bar! Get that intoxophobic bigot Dr. Drew off the air! Down with repressive sobrio-normativity!"

We're here! We *hic* smell like beer! Get over it!

If he decides to remain male, all he needs to do, it seems, is stop taking the blocking hormones and nature will take its course.

Except that he will have decreased bone mass and absolutely no experience at being a man. There is a reason forubetty, after all.

The Chicken

Should read:

There is a reason for puberty, after all.

@Bill White, despite how horrible the story was, your first comment absolutely 100% made my day!

All I can tell you is that I know two individuals who were considering hormone replacement and they both described it as wanting to become a man or woman, not already being one.

Are we forgetting that fundamentalist Christians have at times refused life-saving medical treatment for their children on religious grounds? Or worse, pursued exorcism when pills were necessary? Give me a break. If you aren't aware of cases like this, you just refuse to look.

Alcoholism is not a good parallel I think, since a utilitarian could easily point out its dis-utilitarian features.

well, yeah, al - whatever. To notice that these ladies are women is sexist. To notice that they're lesbians is homophobic. To notice that they're Jewish is anti-semitic.

Maybe your idea of virtue consists in a sort of studied refusal to notice relevant facts about what's going on around you - a sort of willful blindness.

Come on Steve, do you think anyone is going to buy that? You wrote,

"prototypical diesel-dyke jewesses",

and

"Really? You have no words? How about: 'shoot them?'",

so it seems, for some reason, this issue is a real hot button for you - hence the fighting words and the hoped for assassination.

The problem I see is that falling into one of the categories you use to describe some lesbians and being Jewish has nothing to do with the decision to allow an arguably dubious amount of autonomy to an eight year old in a life changing matter, so why mention it in such a hostile manner?

This seems to be a long standing issue with the kid so it may not be as simple as you alls theology would make it.

This seems to be a long standing issue with the kid so it may not be as simple as you alls theology would make it.

He's EIGHT years old. How long-standing could it be??

The Chicken

Sorry, al - can't make head nor tail of this:

"The problem I see is that falling into one of the categories you use to describe some lesbians and being Jewish has nothing to do with the decision to allow an arguably dubious amount of autonomy to an eight year old in a life changing matter, so why mention it in such a hostile manner?"

My mistake. I assumed Jeff was referring to the child in question in his comment of an eight-year old undergoing hormone therapy, but I find, in reading the article, that the boy in question is actually both deaf and eleven years old.

In either case, this is psychological science run amok. Get the boy into a normal environment (no, a lesbian environment is not normal and I will not discuss this) and let him mature with proper role models and then, when he is eighteen or twenty-one, he can do what he pleases.

The idea that if he wants to stay a male he can simply stop the treatment when he gets older is not even good medicine. The period from ten until twenty-three or so is crucial for brain development and the hormones play a part in developing certain regions of the brain. If he stops this hormone treatment at eighteen, say, he will not have developed a mature neuro-cognitive brain set for the male. The two women raising this boy could have asked any neuro-scientist about this, but did they think to? No. They got the answer they wanted and that was it. This lack of structure-specific neural development could cause problems later on.

This is nothing but child abuse, plain and simple. I am sick and tired of psychological "experts" being given this much credence in a case involving simple common sense.

Not that it matters to some, here, but the Catholic understanding of gender identity issues is that you are what you are, physically. This boy is, from a Catholic point of view, a male, pure and simple. He has environmental issues which are not conducive to his growth. If he retains psychological identity issues, even after correcting those (not that I expect them to be) that will be his cross in life. Abused people have scars.

That being said, there have been rare cases of a person having both sex organs. In this case, more latitude can be given. Usually, the person makes a choice at some point and that is it.

This is silliness.

The Chicken

As for surgery on a minor:

This is from a site for a Bay Area doctor,

"Eligibility Criteria. These minimum eligibility criteria for various genital surgeries equally apply to biologic males and females seeking genital surgery. They are:"

"1. Legal age of majority in the patient's nation;"

"In general, despite her misgivings about the Standards of Care, Dr. X is required by the hospital and insurers to require two letters of approval (except patients who can document a real life experience of 5 years or more, in which case just one letter is required). Our rigid adherence to a standard of care allows Dr. X to retain insurance for this important, but still rare, practice of medicine."

I can't imagine a hospital allowing GRS on a minor on liability issues alone. Same for an individual doctor but even if the doc would they would need a hospital.

Steve, you wrote,

"Maybe your idea of virtue consists in a sort of studied refusal to notice relevant facts..."

Leaving aside the offensive descriptions, how is their being Jewish relevant (or lesbian, for that matter)?

All sorts of parents of all religions and all orientations make bad decisions for their children, including life altering ones, not all descriptive facts are relevant.

I can't imagine a hospital allowing GRS on a minor on liability issues alone. Same for an individual doctor but even if the doc would they would need a hospital.

Al, you seem to be concentrating solely on the surgery portion. The bigger problem is that he is already being given hormones that prevent normal development. I don't care what anyone says, that cannot be healthy, physically or psychologically. The boy is in an unhealthy situation being raised by two lesbians and no male role models. Put him in a normal, loving family and let him develop normally and he will be a like most boys in the end.

Chris I mentioned surgery because some seemed to believe that it was immenent or in his futire as a minor. This kid identified on his own as a female and seems to be sticking to it. That makes him an outlier on any bell curve. Unless we get information to the contrary, the situation appears to have nothing to do with the orientation of the adoptive parents. Kids aren't a cookie cutter product and the role model thing is going to have its limits. As there are several hospitals in this country that deal with this, I'll assume that there are kids with your ideal setup that also have this problem.

Force him into a male role and he offs himself; let him go on hormones at 15 and he changes his mind at 18. Sometimes there are no good solutions. The notion that all he needs is a man in his life seems naive.

This kid identified on his own as a female and seems to be sticking to it. That makes him an outlier on any bell curve. Unless we get information to the contrary, the situation appears to have nothing to do with the orientation of the adoptive parents. Kids aren't a cookie cutter product and the role model thing is going to have its limits. As there are several hospitals in this country that deal with this, I'll assume that there are kids with your ideal setup that also have this problem.

Bad science. The boy is in an atypical environment. How much he identified with his women live-in pseudo-parents's gender can not be tested because he has not really had a fair chance to make a decision in an unbiased atmosphere. If the boy had been raised in a traditional environment and developed this gender problem, at least there would be some baseline against which to test it. I do not care much about experts who also happen to be bad scientists.

The effects of normal hormone development may have turned him around, but we'll never get to know, will we, because the idiotic 'scientists' have pre-determined the outcome. I am not just outraged by this as a person, I am also outraged by this as a scientist. This is not science; this is not medicine; this is stupid politics under the colors of compassion.

The Chicken

Go, Chicken!

And just think: There is a whole _unit_ at this hospital that specializes in this pseudo-medicine. For children.

The notion that all he needs is a man in his life seems naive.

Actually it is far more rational than the assumption that he was biologically predetermined to be a misfit. It is a a fact that boys raised by single mothers tend to have severe emotional and developmental deficits. It should be obvious that the mere fact that he has a "two parent household" is negated by the fact that both of his "parents" are homosexual women; the only "two parent household" that has been shown statistically to promote normal emotional development has been some form of traditional heterosexual one.

In fact, traditionalists have noted that since the advent of single mother upbringing becoming common among blacks, that quite a few black men have subtle, but profoundly female tendencies such as how they react to conflict. The overly aggressive tendencies and quickness to take offense are not something intrinsic to blacks, but rather a fusion of male nature and having only female role models to teach them how to address conflict.

You may well be right that this kid is a biologically determined misfit that no amount of role modeling could help, but your ideology is blinding you to the fact that two lesbians raising a little boy is even more unnatural and outside the norm than a typical lower class single mother parenting environment.

You're also ignoring the probability that many of his "male role models" are probably also gay men, many of whom are, well... not exactly "fabulous examples of masculinity..."

"Bad science. The boy is in an atypical environment..."

Sorry Chicken but there are no "typical" environments, never were, and more so today. We all know of homes we thought were ideal - until we got to really know them (think of the opening shot in "Blue Velvet"). Anyway, "typical" wasn't in the cards for this kid no matter what.

"The effects of normal hormone development may have turned him around...",

or left him more confused. I believe the literature shows both possibilities. Paths not taken are part of the human condition. I don't know about you but I can relate instance after instance of Ozzie-and-Harriet-like families making decisions that thoroughly screwed up one or more of their kids (our tax dollars now pay for their incarceration). The notion that a three year old is going to sign that he's a girl because he lives with two women and continue to insist on that even when corrected and then continue that concept for years strikes me as unscientific.

None of us are qualified to judge the scientific merits of this anymore than we are climate change or the economy. We can have opinions, some more informed than others, but that's all.

Steve's version of the Blood Libel needed a response. Otherwise you may be right but only by accident.

Wesley J. Smith's take on this is that this is human experimentation. I think this dovetails well with Chicken's point that it is based on pseudo-science.

Sorry Chicken but there are no "typical" environments, never were, and more so today.

If there never were, then there couldn't be more so, today. If x = 0 at time t, x can't be even "more" zero at time t + x. If you mean to say that environments are less standard and consistent than in the past, that is a consistent logical expression. It, however, only expresses the current scene, not what it could be or ought to be.

Anyway, "typical" wasn't in the cards for this kid no matter what.

Yes, because a bunch of cowardly, selfish people decided otherwise. It didn't have to be this way. If stupid politicians had had any backbone and stood up to the disordered zeitgeist of people who have no right concept of marriage, this little boy might have the benefit of adoptive parents who actually care about him as parents should.

"The effects of normal hormone development may have turned him around...",

or left him more confused. I believe the literature shows both possibilities.

They do not show that possibility in this case because the experiment was never run. Hormones do not cause confusion. Gender identity disorder is not a function of hormones, per se, except in extremely rare circumstances. Hormones are important for stabilization of the male (in this case) brain, bone density, etc., and deliberately suppressing what would have, presumably, been a normal level would leave the brain in a disastrous state of mixed development during the pre- and pubescent periods. It is far better to let him develop in a normal physiologic way until his development were complete and then let him decide.

Oh, I read the article Steve linked to and I could almost sue and win in court for malpractice for one of the doctors saying in the article that if the boy doesn't like being a girl they can stop the hormones and he will go back to normal. This is an expert? This is not how hormones work in the puberty period. It does after maturation occurs. Did the reporter misunderstand? Did the "parents".

In any case, the idea that the effects of normal hormone development cause confusion have never, to my knowledge, been studied. How would you do it? Give them one type of hormone for one year and the other for another and look at the difference? This would be highly unethical because of developmental issues. No, the experiment has not been run and the literature does not show that hormones cause confusion. In fact, the CNN report which Steve cited, above says this:

There is little consistent advice for parents, because robust data and studies about transgender children are rare. The rates of people who are transgender vary from 1 in 30,000 to 1 in 1,000, depending on various international studies.

The point is that this boy has a normal set of xy chromosomes, presumably, and these are predisposed for certain biological activity. What is relatively certain is that it is not his physiology that is causing his confusion, otherwise medical evidence to support this would have been presented (there are some disorders that can lead to this, but none have been presented).

Now, confusion can come from other places. We really don't understand the neurobiology of sexual identity in the brain all that well, so, perhaps he has a subtle disorder in a neural system, but that would seem to call for corrective brain surgery (if that were possible), not indulgence.

The notion that a three year old is going to sign that he's a girl because he lives with two women and continue to insist on that even when corrected and then continue that concept for years strikes me as unscientific.

Oh? Have you never heard of the Stockholm Syndrome, the Asch Conformity Experiment, etc.? This little boy was adopted by two women and the idiotic, insulting, CNN article says:

After his parents, Pauline Moreno and Debra Lobel, adopted Thomas at age 2, they observed that he was aloof. Shy and freckle-faced, he usually sat in a corner reading a book.

PARENTS??? In what sense are these two females parents? Does the CNN correspondent know the etymology of the word?

Parent: late 12c., from O.Fr. parent (11c.), from L. parentem (nom. parens) "father or mother, ancestor," noun use of prp. of parere "bring forth, give birth to, produce," from PIE base *per- "to bring forth" (see pare).

In order to be a parent, you must be a member of a biological reproduction pair unit. In other words, you must be or be capable of being a member of a male-female unit of reproduction. The use of the term, "parent," for two females or two males living together in a faux marriage is inconsistent with the traditional understanding of the term and I refuse to accept any sort of bizzare linguistic broadening to a situation which means the exact contradiction of the term.

Getting back to the point, the notion that a three-year old boy, who doesn't even have the use of reason for goodness sakes, is going to sign that he is a girl when all he sees as protectors are women is quite possible and even a blind man could see this with a cane. The morally blind are too self-absorbed in their own darkness to see what is plainly a possibility. He might simply be mimicking his environment or fleeing to safety within a structure that seems supporting. No, a psychologist would never think that this is a possibility, eh?

"Why, Chicken, how would they have ruled out this possibility?" Did they? Did they, now, rule out this possibility? If so, I have no way of knowing how, since they certainly weren't looking for it since they consider two women as "parents" to be perfectly natural. Did anyone ask the question?

I still maintain: bad science. Abuse.

I guarantee one thing: neither one of these women is Catholic. The Catholic Church has a much more common-sensical approach to the whole matter. For one thing, the little boy would not have two women as, "parents," and he would have been taken to be male on face value. If he did have a brain disorder that predisposed him to feelings contrary to his biological nature, then he would be counseled to either seek to correct the situation through changing the neurobiology of the brain, while remaining male, or, if that is not possible, or that this was his cross in life. The Catholic Church has screwed up many things because of fallen human nature, but its dogmatic structure is a product of transcendence and this includes in the life issues. It gets this issue, right.

No, these women know neither of common sense nor crosses, or else they would have turned the boy over to sane parents or never even started the charade in the first place.

The Chicken

Except that Westley and the Chicken are coming from the same place - an ideologically and theologically driven agenda. Is it really inconceivable that out of seven billion individuals, a small fraction of one percent might have this problem?

Here are a couple of stories that involve "typical" families.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=90273278

http://www.childrenshospital.org/az/Site2905/mainpageS2905P5.html

I get the impression that blocking is reserved for only the outliers. Considering that one of the cases involves twins, the "we only need to provide male role models" theory seems to fail.

"They do not show that possibility in this case because the experiment was never run."

Chicken, your failing and nitpicking. It doesn't matter what course is taken, either way we wind up with a result and a counter factual. An actual experiment is impossible.

What evidence to you have that the blocking, as done, is irreversible?

Oops, s/b flailing.

@al: "Steve's version of the Blood Libel needed a response."

Really, al - have you no shame?

To note, once, in passing, the undeniable *fact* that these prototypical diesel-dykes just happen to be prototypical *jewish* diesel-dykes is, in your mind, the moral equivalent of falsely accusing jews of drinking the blood of Christian children?

I repeat: have you no shame?

Look: the overwhelmingly disproportionate role played by [some] jews in overturning traditional Christian sexual mores during the "sexual revolution" of the 60's & 70's, in propagating the "feminism" of the 70's and 80's, and so on and so forth, leading up to outré ventures like the present case, is, or at least ought to be, perfectly obvious to anybody who's ever paid even the least little bit of attention to these issues.

The fact that these ladies are jewish is a relevant piece of the puzzle, here, and is well worthy of mention.

Steve, when you are in a hole, stop digging :).

@al, again:

"there are no 'typical' environments, never were, and more so today. We all know of homes we thought were ideal - until we got to really know them (think of the opening shot in *Blue Velvet*)."

Wow, al - what a mess you make, when you try to think. From your first sentence to your second, you elide from "typical" to "ideal" (you do understand what a big mistake that is, don't you?) And then you try to disprove the existence of this supposed ideal by referencing a work of fiction?

Again, you do understand what a big mistake that is, don't you?

(Never mind that the work of fiction in question vies with *American Beauty* for the hotly contested title of "worst and stupidest movie ever made." For the moment, it's enough to note that it's...*a work of fiction*.

A few months later, while assisting his dad, Dennis, with a plumbing job, he told him that he hated his own penis. Dennis choked up. “I cried and he cried, and then his brother came in and we all hugged and cried,” he says.

So a 4, maybe 5, year-old says something off-the-wall and you breakdown, hug, and cry? This just doesn't pass the smell test. Young kids say a lot of dumb things that they don't understand. This reaction to such a statement hints that this family has some problems.

In fifth grade, after the long summer, Ryan came back to school as Sylvia. Although she was nervous on her first day with her new name, Sylvia found the majority of her classmates warm and welcoming. “Some of my friends asked me why I had waited so long,” she says.

Why do I keep thinking that this is some exteremely expensive, liberal private school?

She may choose to stop the pubertal suppressors and go through puberty as her biological sex. But it is hard to imagine. It’s more probable that, at age 16, after undergoing additional rigorous medical evaluation, she will decide to physically transition to the female she has always felt she was.

Sixteen year-olds are the most rational people on the planet. Why not let them destroy their bodies with drugs and surgery. Ryan is messed up and instead of helping him, his parents have encouraged it.

Al, exceptions don't disprove the rule. People have survived falling from great heights. That doesn't mean I recommend jumping off of a 16 story building. Just because some examples of normal families with messed up kids does not mean it still isn't the best situation.

@al, yet again:

"Steve, when you are in a hole, stop digging :)."

Hey, al, the digging I've done so far has reduced you to the mindless spouting of ancient Clichés.

Since I enjoy a bit of ideological cabaret, I'm inclined to keep on with it.

Al, I know you just find it so convenient to declare that WJS (whose name you never can seem to spell correctly) is coming from an "ideologically and theologically driven agenda." In point of fact, he's exceedingly mild-mannered, careful, and entirely non-theological. His points here are well-taken: This is make-it-up-as-you-go-along "treatment" of physically normal children in an experimental fashion.

If anyone has an agenda here it is the people who think that children who have nothing wrong with their bodies should have their normal course of physical development impeded because we might want to go along with their bizarre psychological desire to eventually have those bodies radically changed and mutilated to make them look like the body of the opposite sex. This is a gender-bending agenda, an agenda that says one's male or female biological gender isn't innate (all ordinary empirical evidence to the contrary notwithstanding). It's a reality-denying social construct agenda taken to its insane but consistent conclusion--that if you think you are a woman or would like to be a woman even though you have a male body, we should go along and change your body.

That you would say that a person like WJS who even raises a _caution_ about beginning this process by delaying puberty in a _minor child_ must have an "ideologically and theologically driven agenda" shows that you yourself live in the crazy-world of liberal-land where up is down and black is white.

We have known about the effects of Testosterone on the neural development of the male brain for many years. How many studies would you like? Would fifty be enough? I'm not going to look them up. Do a Pubmed search. There are developmental phases in brain development. The brain is a very plastic entity in puberty and operates on a use-it-or-lose-it system. If the hormones aren't there, subtle structural changes do not occur that should. Sometimes, there can be recovery, but there comes a point of no return. I've said all I have to say - anything more and I'm into research. I am not a developmental neurobiologist. I do theory, but I try to stay current on the latest trends in neuroscience in general and more in-depth in my own specialization in the field.

The Chicken

rofl MC just blew al out of the water. And if we're coming from a theologically-driven agenda, so what? How does that refute any of the points made here? You're coming with a sleazy liberal scumbag agenda. What follows? Presumably you have no problem with the abolitionists who argued from a "theologically-driven agenda," nor do you have a problem with those in favor of homosexual marriage or abortion from a "theologically-driven agenda."

Look: the overwhelmingly disproportionate role played by [some] jews in overturning traditional Christian sexual mores during the "sexual revolution" of the 60's & 70's, in propagating the "feminism" of the 70's and 80's, and so on and so forth, leading up to outré ventures like the present case, is, or at least ought to be, perfectly obvious to anybody who's ever paid even the least little bit of attention to these issues.

The strongly Jewish influence on leftist politics is something conservatives don't like to discuss for the same reason liberals don't want to admit that blacks really are arrested more often because blacks commit far more crimes proportional to their numbers than whites. No one wants to admit that there are certain cultural pathologies that afflict some groups far more than others. Why, that would actually mean that people who are prejudiced aren't automatically bigots since they are, as Walter Williams puts it, "acting on cheap information."

Oops, apologies to WJS and I don't have a problem with a cautious approach in this manner. In fact that appears to be how the condition is treated. In the (now) three referenced cases we have a condition that persisted over some time and resulted in extreme behavior. No child who expresses just any level of gender dissatisfaction is put on hormones immediately. It seems we are dealing with a very small subset of a very small subset.

In another life I had some contact with folks in certain aspects of the entertainment industry. I had the occasion to know several trans folks - at least four male to female and at least one female to male - and a several cross-dressers. It seems the wiring doesn't always match the anatomy and, in a very few cases, hormones and surgery seem to help.

You all seem to disagree. Fine, this is America. As with the infanticide-abortion discussion, all I am pointing out is that some conclusions don't match the facts. Hence my disagreement with Herr Burton's Cartman-like insistence on the relevance of TEH GAY and TEH JEW to the matter at hand,

http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/154465/cartmans-rally

and with Lydia, WJS, and the Chicken as to the possibility that, in a very, very few cases, time and a male role model won't suffice to resolve things.

Chicken's observations are as irrelevant as they are correct. No one denies the importance of hormones or the critical nature of time - that there is a cut off for delay demonstrates that. Given the drop in onset over time due to external factors, is it inconceivable that a little delay might be feasible? Where behavior becomes seriously disruptive and threats of self-harm develp, we may well be at the point where we are looking at some delay as the least bad decision.

"Presumably you have no problem with the abolitionists who argued from a "theologically-driven agenda," nor do you have a problem with those in favor of homosexual marriage or abortion from a "theologically-driven agenda."

I don't have a problem with a theologically driven agenda as long as there are also other reasons I can agree with. You may believe that your god wants gays to marry, I may believe that my understanding of Equal Protection requires me to support same sex marriage. Fine, welcome aboard.

The problem here is that the facts seem to disagree with certain deep seated beliefs. Tell me where the facts are wrong.

Steve, the Chicken wrote,

"The boy is in an atypical environment. How much he identified with his women live-in pseudo-parents's gender can not be tested because he has not really had a fair chance to make a decision in an unbiased atmosphere. If the boy had been raised in a traditional environment and developed this gender problem, at least there would be some baseline against which to test it."

In that context my point is obvious. Sorry you are having problems. I also answered his objection in the only way possible; I supplied two cases of what I assume is what he meant by typical. We can't, of course, put the same person in two separate environments at the same time.

"I don't have a problem with a theologically driven agenda as long as there are also other reasons I can agree with."

What count as other reasons you can agree with? Moral reasons? Economic reasons? Medical and psychological reasons? Do you mean the phrase "I can agree with" as in literally you (al) can agree with, or do you mean this to be a general point about reasons everyone can agree with? Either way, so far, I've heard nothing from MC here that would imply he has a "theologically-driven agenda," just certain scientific facts which you either fail to acknowledge or from which you fail to draw the correct conclusions.

"The problem here is that the facts seem to disagree with certain deep seated beliefs."

The above quoted statement directly contrasts "facts" with "certain deep-seated beliefs." Thanks for your take on liberal "neutrality."

"Tell me where the facts are wrong."

That is impossible because by definition facts can't be wrong.

I'll respond, Al, tomorrow, if possible. I have a sinus migraine in the works.

The Chicken

"I have a sinus migraine in the works."

Yikes! Feel better.

@Mike T: "No one wants to admit that there are certain cultural pathologies that afflict some groups far more than others. Why, that would actually mean that people who are prejudiced aren't automatically bigots since they are, as Walter Williams puts it, 'acting on cheap information.'"

Precisely so. I wish that I had said that.

@al: "No child who expresses just any level of gender dissatisfaction is put on hormones immediately."

Oh, so you wait a bit, do you, before you begin the injections, eventually followed by the amputations?

That's *so* reassuring.

@al, again: "Herr Burton"...

You know, al, I once thought that you were among our smarter lefty commenters.

Sadly, I still think that.

You all seem to disagree. Fine, this is America. As with the infanticide-abortion discussion, all I am pointing out is that some conclusions don't match the facts. Hence my disagreement with Herr Burton's Cartman-like insistence on the relevance of TEH GAY and TEH JEW to the matter at hand,

One of the facts you frequently ignore is that groups like homosexuals and Jews do, in fact, have tendencies which can be generalized to the majority of the group until an individual shows otherwise. This applies to all human groups, with certain groupings (such as literally all whites and all blacks on Earth vs American whites and blacks) being less capable of generalization than others.

The fact is that American homosexuals and Jews, like whites, blacks, straights, etc. are quite easily and often reduced to certain predictions based on group behaviors and how an individual shows they are living up to that stereotype.

You may be a special little snowflake, but beneath the facade of individualism, you're just crystalized water like every other snowflake.

As the CNN reporter noted, the science behind transgenderism is hardly in its infancy, whereas developmental neurobiology is much farther along in its understanding. It seems to me to be most prudent to err on the side of more knowledge than less. We know what hormone suppression will do to adolescent children. We don't know the causes of transgenderism nor the best way to treat it. In one-hundred years, when microscopic brain surgery can be performed, this condition might be very treatable. It does not follow, however, that if one has, say, sickle cell anemia, that one should practice bloodletting simply because one does not know what else to do. Some medical cures are not for our time. Cancer was one, such, for the 1920's and is still problematic, today. Transgenderism is one in which a cure does not exist in our time and mutilation, just because we do not know what else to do, is nothing more than a palliative. The Cross is real, my friend and we all have one.

The Chicken

That's a pretty good comment, Chicken.

"No one wants to admit that there are certain cultural pathologies that afflict some groups far more than others..."

Not moi. I'm more than willing to point out the tendencies towards willful ignorance, insurrection, and treason that lurk in the hearts of many "Americans" due to their cleaving to certain religious and geographical loyalties. I frequently note the pathologies that afflict too much of Islamic world due to its culturally conservative and traditionalist bent. All I ask for is evidence not epithets. There is no evidence that gay adoptive parents are any more (or less, for that matter) likely to make dumb parenting decisions. Same for Jews. You got a case? State it instead of blurting out lumpen language.

"@al: "No child who expresses just any level of gender dissatisfaction is put on hormones immediately."

"Oh, so you wait a bit, do you, before you begin the injections, eventually followed by the amputations?"

If you have any evidence that every child who expresses some level of gender confusion winds up on suppression hormones followed by hormones that change the developmental directions followed by reassignment surgery, please share.

My impression is that a small number of children have this problem and that the intensity is variable. A brief survey of the literature shows that for a small subset of this already small subset this condition develops into a serious problem that negatively effects their life.

"Irreversible Interventions. Any surgical intervention should not be carried out prior to adulthood, or prior to a real-life experience of at least two years in the gender role of the sex with which the adolescent identifies. The threshold of 18 should be seen as an eligibility criterion and not an indication in itself for active intervention."

http://www.wpath.org/documents/Standards%20of%20Care%20V7%20-%202011%20WPATH.pdf

"The fact is that American homosexuals and Jews, like whites, blacks, straights, etc. are quite easily and often reduced to certain predictions based on group behaviors and how an individual shows they are living up to that stereotype."

If one were to grant that, it still has no applicability to the instant case which is why my observations stand. To use your example, Herr Burton is on very thin ice,

Chicken, what we do know is that forcing the small minority of those with gender issues who would qualify for hormone suppression to tough it out results in many unfortunate results including mutilation and suicide.

My reading of medical science over the centuries is that we do the best we can with the knowledge and technology at hand. We did amputations without anesthesia, antibiotics, and advanced prosthetics because gangrene is 100% fatal.

Anyway your points on the seriousness of the matter are well taken and, as far as I can tell, are well appreciated by those treating adolescents.

"Transgenderism is one in which a cure does not exist in our time and mutilation, just because we do not know what else to do, is nothing more than a palliative."

A palliative is better than nothing and assuming that biology should rule may be premature.

"The Cross is real, my friend and we all have one."

And that, Lydia and awatkins, is what I meant by and ideo-thological. We all are free to accept whatever crosses we wish; we have only a limited ability to impose crosses on our children and none whatsoever as to strangers.

We did amputations without anesthesia, antibiotics, and advanced prosthetics because gangrene is 100% fatal.

Transgenderism is not fatal.

A palliative is better than nothing and assuming that biology should rule may be premature.

May be? Then take Chicken's advice and wait until you know more.

the tendencies towards willful ignorance, insurrection, and treason that lurk in the hearts of many "Americans" due to their cleaving to certain religious and geographical loyalties.

I'll probably be sorry I asked, but what's your evidence for this?

My reading of medical science over the centuries...

al, the immortal.

The threshold of 18 should be seen as an eligibility criterion and not an indication in itself for active intervention.

Al, the careless. From a quotation in the thread above:

It’s more probable that, at age 16, after undergoing additional rigorous medical evaluation, she will decide to physically transition to the female she has always felt she was.

If you think that matters, evidently the threshold of 18 isn't even observed. Not to mention the fact that a young person who hasn't gone through normal puberty due to having been given drugs is hardly in some above-it-all, neutral psychological state for making decisions.

And Al, your willful stupidity is sorta boring. Someone refers to a cross, pretty clearly making the point that, in the rather more secular words of economist Thomas Sowell, there are no ultimate solutions for many problems in the real world, and Al jumps on this and assumes that the person is saying, "Hey, let's not amputate this person's genitals, because my theology tells me it's better for him to suffer." I mean, why do you waste our time like this? I say, let's not mutilate people's healthy members because it's *obviously medical malpractice*.

@al:

"All I ask for is evidence not epithets."

My. What a noble sentiment.

Trouble is, a few pararaphs later you're again calling me "Herr Burton" - precisely because I introduced into evidence some facts that you'd prefer nobody to think about.

Poorly played, li'l al.

What I'd like to know is that if hormone therapy is supposed to work in one direction, why don't they first try it in the other? Maybe all the kid needs is a little more testosterone. Just a question, not a proposal. Chicken?

Excellent point, JC. Supposing, for purposes of argument, that there's some mis-match between a kid's body and his mind, why assume that it's his body that needs changing, and not his mind?

Not moi. I'm more than willing to point out the tendencies towards willful ignorance, insurrection, and treason that lurk in the hearts of many "Americans" due to their cleaving to certain religious and geographical loyalties.

Your liberalism has far more in common with that of the French Revolution than the American Revolution.

If one were to grant that, it still has no applicability to the instant case which is why my observations stand.

To the contrary, one can easily aggregate the common behaviors of both groups since both women are members of both groups. Thus your observation does not automatically stand because one could easily extrapolate many plausible scenarios in which their methods of parenting and the environment they've created would be socially toxic for the child.

I'll probably be sorry I asked, but what's your evidence for this?

Al finds any genuine sympathy with the South to be a form of treason. He's openly sympathetic to the "Radical Republicans" and has advocated measures like summarily executing the entire officer corps of the Confederacy, and probably the NCOs as well. He's impervious to the logic of Lincoln and Johnson who knew that such a barbaric and vindictive act that not even the British would have contemplated on the Continental Army would have made the South not only incapable of reintegrating into the Union but would likely have (at a minimum) permanently cost the Union its relationship with the rest of the West.

** There is also the fact that such an order very well might have ended with Grant overthrowing the elected government of the Union for giving such a barbaric order or the European powers invading the Union (which Al should be realistic enough to admit would have ended in terrible tragedy for the Union).

What I'd like to know is that if hormone therapy is supposed to work in one direction, why don't they first try it in the other? Maybe all the kid needs is a little more testosterone. Just a question, not a proposal. Chicken?

The boy is not suffering form a hormone imbalance. Adding extra testosterone will likely not change the gender identity issue, but it could cause an increase in aggression and an increased possibility of prostate cancer later in life. Nature is not screwed up in terms of endrocrinology. Let nature take its course.

The Chicken

Just now checking back in. Lydia has it right - I was pointing out that children (like the poor child in the news story) often want things that are ridiculous or harmful, and (unlike the poor child) I had the great good fortune to have parents who talked me out of a profoundly stupid desire. And if I couldn't be talked out of it, it wouldn't happen anyway - we had no money, it was amazingly stupid, no doctor would do it, and the almighty State wasn't there to coddle juvenile idiocy.

There is substantial discussion about this situation on the Secondhand Smoke blog at First Things. Go here:

http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/secondhandsmoke/2011/09/30/human-experimentation-the-real-issue-in-stopping-gender-variant-boys-puberty/#comment-35985

Interesting that one who so casually tosses off terms like "Diesel Dyke" and "Jewess" and seems to believe that at least some of the folks who fall into those categories should be assassinated is so offended by merely being assigned a Teutonic honorific.

"Al, the careless."

Sigh, ever patient and living to serve I will first point out that hormones produce physical changes and that is all the further many transsexuals choose to go. Repeat, hormones, on their own and without surgery, produce physical changes.

Now, if your point is that if one has the connections, determination, and price of admission one can pretty much get anything one desires in this fallen world, I'll be happy to agree and also point out that, as with the Chicken's hormone concerns, that point is entirely irrelevant to the present thread.

All the information I can find indicates that reputable shrinks wouldn't sign off on surgery, reputable surgeons wouldn't perform the surgery, and reputable hospitals wouldn't allow the surgery in their facilities..

Below is a chart from a clinic in Phuket. Note the youngest is 19.

Nationality

Average age
(Years)

Lowest age
(Years)

Highest age
(Years)

Total number
Thai 26.7 19 45 79
Japanese 39.3 19 54 8
English 39.0 26 53 5
Australia/NZ 40.8 25 50 7
USA/Canada 50.5 22 65 66
All 37.8 19 65 165

Recall the quote from a well known Bay Area surgeon's site indicating insurance restrictions. Considering current standards, find two shrinks who would sign off on surgery is unlikely as they also have licenses and insurance. The surgery requires hospitalization so good luck finding a hospital and anesthesiologist who would do SRS on a minor.

This is from another Thai clinic, (Thai surgeons are somewhat more flexible, it seems, but there also seems to be a consensus on age and Thai law appears to have codified that)

"SRS Under Age 20

Under Thai medical regulations, patients under the age of 20 are unable to undergo surgery without the written approval of their parents, legal guardians, a direct blood relative, or an individual who has legal Power of Attorney over your affairs. The signee must, himself or herself, be aged over 20. The signed document giving approval for you to undergo SRS must also be accompanied by an originally signed photocopy of a photo-ID which bears the same signature. If the family name of the signee is different from your own family name, copies of suitable evidence must be given to link the signee with having the authority to sign on your behalf.

If you are able to obtain this approval, Dr Suporn would be quite happy to proceed with surgery - providing you are able to meet the other criteria of our protocol, particularly in respect of having been diagnosed gender dysphoric, and having psychotherapeutic agreement to undergo the surgery. If you do not provide this approval, in original format, at the time of the operation, Dr Suporn will not proceed.

Dr Suporn is unable to undertake SRS on patients aged less than 18 years."

"why assume that it's his body that needs changing, and not his mind?"

That, in fact, was the assumption for many years,; it didn't work out so well.

Jeff, increasing the level of testosterone in someone who is already deeply disturbed over the effects of a normal (for them) level of that hormone doesn't seem like a good idea. I see MC has also commented. I would add that the added aggression might increase the potential for suicide which is already high enough for those who have this condition.

"And Al, your willful stupidity is sorta boring. Someone refers to a cross, pretty clearly making the point that, in the rather more secular words of economist Thomas Sowell, there are no ultimate solutions for many problems in the real world, and Al jumps on this and assumes that the person is saying, "Hey, let's not amputate this person's genitals, because my theology tells me it's better for him to suffer." I mean, why do you waste our time like this? I say, let's not mutilate people's healthy members because it's *obviously medical malpractice*."

The emotion in your statement sort of makes my point. No one is amputating anything on a minor. That you are so overwrought over this item obviously has a basis outside any rational analysis. That leaves us with (at minimum) ideology and theology.

Since when has a lack of the perfect been a slam-dunk reason for doing nothing?

This is from WJS,

"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."

Again, and as with the Chicken, his other points are well taken and would apply if hormone suppression was given indiscriminately. My point is that while most (way most) of the kids who have gender issues resolve them and suppression would be wrong, there are a very small number for whom this is the least bad solution.

I just saw that my deer friends have found a chink in my fencing so later for Mike and William.

For many years, we have judged our natural biology to be flawed, which is why we correct our un-evolved natures with various forms of artificial contraception, some chemical, some surgical. Hiding behind the pretense of normalcy was the demonic lust for power and misappropriation. Ecce homo.

Now, if your point is that if one has the connections, determination, and price of admission one can pretty much get anything one desires in this fallen world, I'll be happy to agree and also point out that, as with the Chicken's hormone concerns, that point is entirely irrelevant to the present thread.

All the information I can find indicates that reputable shrinks wouldn't sign off on surgery, reputable surgeons wouldn't perform the surgery, and reputable hospitals wouldn't allow the surgery in their facilities..

That's interesting considering that the link you provided which was where I found the quote about the likely surgery on Ryan at age 16. I mean he's having it done by the fly-by-night folks at Boston Children's Hospital. Which has this nice little blurb in Wikipedia.

At 300 Longwood Avenue, Children's is adjacent both to its teaching affiliate, Harvard Medical School, and to Dana-Farber Cancer Institute.

Wow, I guess Harvard is not reputable now.

Al, the hole digger.

Lydia, shame on you. You posted this quote,

"It’s more probable that, at age 16, after undergoing additional rigorous medical evaluation, she will decide to physically transition to the female she has always felt she was,"

as "evidence" that I am careless and surgery was going to happen at 16. Chris chimes in with his contribution based on your post.

OK, always humble and open to correction, I went to the source and found this,

"It’s more probable that, at age 16, after undergoing additional rigorous medical evaluation, she will decide to physically transition to the female she has always felt she was. If so, she can start taking hormone therapy under Spack’s supervision, and will develop breasts and hips. When she’s 18, she can have feminizing genitoplastic surgery at an adult hospital if she desires."

http://www.childrenshospital.org/az/Site2905/mainpageS2905P5.html

I hope you were more careful on your dis.

Wait, I just rechecked Chris's post and he claims to have gone to the site. Chris, explain yourself.

Al, I've just looked back at my comments. It doesn't look like I referred specifically to surgery, nor like you did in your original quoted statement about age 18. However, it does appear that the female hormonal "transition" undertaken at age 16 is indeed a bigger deal than even blocking puberty (and that's a big enough deal). One might have taken the original statement about age 18 to mean that nothing that is that big of a deal _physically_ is done on the decision of a minor. Not so. Which was Chris's point in putting up the quotations initially.

Yes, it's true: I used Chris's quotations from your links. Then he referred to my quotations of his quotations from your links. This is not really a big deal to me.

...and seems to believe that at least some of the folks who fall into those categories should be assassinated is so offended by merely being assigned a Teutonic honorific.

No one, except you, took Steve to be using anything other than hyperbole. But you'll keep repeating it anyway.

...one can pretty much get anything one desires in this fallen world

That's cheating. In your theology the world isn't fallen.

al, I am not easily offended. You will have to try much harder to accomplish *that*.

I merely note the obvious fact that your preaching in favor of "evidence" and against "epithets" conflicts with your practice, which relies heavily on name-calling whenever the facts don't suit you.

You're a noisy hypocrite.

Oh, and btw...the term "jewess" may be a bit old-fashioned, but how is it insulting?

The expression "diesel-dyke," of course, is another matter. It undeniably carries a bit of an evaluative charge. So what can I say, except that I have plenty of up-close & personal experience with homosexual females, ranging from the most femme of lipstick lesbians to the most butch of diesel dykes.

And these two are quite possibly the dieselest dykes ever to diesel down the dyke.

It's just incredible to me that anybody could ever have thought them fit guardians for a two-year old boy.

I wrote,

"All the information I can find indicates that reputable shrinks wouldn't sign off on surgery, reputable surgeons wouldn't perform the surgery, and reputable hospitals wouldn't allow the surgery in their facilities."

Also I posted a link to a story to which Chis went and read extracting this quote,

"She may choose to stop the pubertal suppressors and go through puberty as her biological sex. But it is hard to imagine. It’s more probable that, at age 16, after undergoing additional rigorous medical evaluation, she will decide to physically transition to the female she has always felt she was."

Lydia then posted this, first quoting my quote of the WPATH standards that are in general use,

"The threshold of 18 should be seen as an eligibility criterion and not an indication in itself for active intervention."

She then denounced me,

"Al, the careless. From a quotation in the thread above:"

quoting Chris's extraction from the link I provided without, it seems bothering to go to the source,

"It’s more probable that, at age 16, after undergoing additional rigorous medical evaluation, she will decide to physically transition to the female she has always felt she was."

and then opined after calling me "careless",

"If you think that matters, evidently the threshold of 18 isn't even observed."

Always generous and ever putting the best construction on things, I'm willing to allow that Lydia, having made up her mind and being indifferent to fact and nuance, lost track of things and inadvertently posted an item in a manner that would lead to others becoming confused - after all, she did write,

"If you think that matters, evidently the threshold of 18 isn't even observed,"

after all.

At minimum that would seem to make obvious just who is the careless one and should lead her to be hesitant to label others "stupid".

However it does seem that Chris was attempting deliberately mislead us. Recall the next two sentences following the one he quoted,

"If so, she can start taking hormone therapy under Spack’s supervision, and will develop breasts and hips. When she’s 18, she can have feminizing genitoplastic surgery at an adult hospital if she desires."

However, Chris responded to Lydia's use of his quote from the article he claims to have read,

"That's interesting considering that the link you [i.e. moi] provided which was where I found the quote about the likely surgery on Ryan at age 16."

Yet the article clearly doesn't say that. What's say you Chris?

BTW, this is the major difference between left and right in this country at this time: on the right, facts count for little; ideology and "first principles" are everything"; it's OK to distort and make things up if they advance an ideological point; on the left, it's not.

BTW, this is the major difference between left and right in this country at this time: on the right, facts count for little; ideology and "first principles" are everything"; it's OK to distort and make things up if they advance an ideological point; on the left, it's not.

I often respond with facts. By the way, facts can often be derived from first principles in science. Truth is singular. As such, the facts support the truth, not the left nor the right. I reckon both sides are wrong about as much as they are right in finding the truth.

The Chicken

Since the comments on this post started with Mr. Spock, let's talk about deriving facts from first principles, which Al says is a trick of the Right. In the episode of Star Trek TOS entitled, Court Martial, Spock testifies on behalf of Kirk. The following exchange occurs between Shaw (the prosecutor) and Mr. Spock:

SHAW: I call Mister Spock. (Spock hands over his data chip, sits down and puts his hand on the lie detector.)

COMPUTER: Spock, serial number S179-276SP. Service rank, Lieutenant Commander. Position, First officer, science officer. Current assignment, USS Enterprise. Commendations, Vulcanian Scientific Legion of Honour. Awards of valour. Twice decorated by Starfleet command.

SHAW: Mister Spock, as a First officer, you know a great deal about computers, don't you?

SPOCK: I know all about them.

SHAW: It is possible for a computer to malfunction, is it not?

SPOCK: Affirmative.

SHAW: Do you know of any malfunction which has caused an inaccuracy in the Enterprise computer?

SPOCK: Negative.

SHAW: That answer is based on your mechanical survey of the Enterprise computer ordered by the defendant prior to this trial, is it not?

SPOCK: Affirmative.

SHAW: Now the stardate...

SPOCK: But the computer is inaccurate, never the less.

SHAW: Why do you say that?

SPOCK: It reports that the jettison button was pressed before the Red Alert.

SHAW: In other words, it reports that Captain Kirk was reacting to an extreme emergency that did not then exist.

SPOCK: And that is impossible.

SHAW: Is it? Were you watching him the exact moment he pressed the jettison button?

SPOCK: No, I was occupied. The ship was already on Yellow Alert.

SHAW: Then how can you dispute the finding of the log?

SPOCK: I do not dispute it. I merely state that it is wrong.

SHAW: Oh? On what do you base that statement?

SPOCK: I know the Captain. He is in...

SHAW: Please instruct the witness not to speculate.

SPOCK: Lieutenant, I am half Vulcanian. Vulcanians do not speculate. I speak from pure logic. If I let go of a hammer on a planet that has a positive gravity, I need not see it fall to know that it has in fact fallen.

SHAW: I do not see what that has to...

SPOCK: Gentlemen, human beings have characteristics just as inanimate objects do. It is impossible for Captain Kirk to act out of panic or malice. It is not his nature.

SHAW: In your opinion.

SPOCK: Yes. In my opinion.

SHAW: Thank you. Your witness, Mister Cogley.

COGLEY: No questions.

STONE: You may step down.

One CAN derive facts from first principles. In this case, I need not be present to know that Al will respond to this.

The Chicken

P. S. Sorry for the teasing, Al. I appreciate your comments.

To be clear: It's true, Al, that I originally took the quotation Chris gave to mean that the surgery was possible at age 16, though I didn't myself actually mention surgery.

Contrary to your insinuations, it's quite legitimate not always to look up every link and to make the best interpretation one can of what appear to be representative quotations.

I add, however, that obviously the more aggressive hormone treatment that it is apparently alluding to in "transitioning to the woman she always felt like" (or whatever the phrase is--no, I'm not going to look up the exact words) which will produce "breasts and hips" is definitely intended to move this boy towards surgery at age 18--as early as possible after he's managed to cross the legal age threshhold of adulthood, and after having been on hormones continuously for years, with deliberate intent to feminize as thoroughly as non-surgical means can for the preceding two years. This is definitely going into overdrive while the boy is still a minor and putting him on a train driving with lots of momentum in one and only one direction.

If you think this is cautious treatment, including cautious treatment of a minor, leaving the freshly-turned 18-year-old in a position to make a well-informed decision, then you and I just have very different notions of what constitutes medical caution.

Your statement that playing fast and loose with the truth is taboo on the left at this time in this country is risible, but precisely because it is so risible, and because I have better things to do, I'm not going to get into a debate on that subject.

My post did give the impression that surgery was happening at age 16. For that, I apologize.

However, the drugs given at 16 are pretty much surgery by other means. Per the standard of care document given by Al.

Partially reversible interventions. These include hormone therapy to masculinize or feminize the body. Some hormone-induced changes may need reconstructive surgery to reverse the effect (e.g., gynaecomastia caused by estrogens), while other changes are not reversible (e.g., deepening of the voice caused by testosterone).

So, again, a 16 year-old is going to be given treatments, that if he wants to actually look like a male, would likely require surgery.

I did notice that later in the article, the family had moved to a new school where no one know Ryan is a boy. I'm sure that would go over well with some parents if they found out.

Your statement that playing fast and loose with the truth is taboo on the left at this time in this country is risible

al made this same assertion - on the right, facts count for little; ideology and first principles are everything - on another thread, and I asked him if that meant that on the left facts are everything and first principles nothing, but he never answered.

I sort of figure that if your first principles are wrong, you'll do some awful things with the facts. Such as maiming people for life.

al, look at this way: what is the worst possible result that could be envisaged by conservative Christians, faced with the prospect of turning over a two-year-old orphan boy to the care of a (no doubt deeply committed) pair of Jewish lesbians?

Might it just possibly be - what has actually happened here? I.e., the poor kid hates the fact that he's a boy, and wants his penis cut off, so that he can pretend to be a girl?

If said conservative Christians don't exploit this case to the political max, then they're just hopeless.

Once again I recommend that the commentators here check out the link I supplied earlier to SecondHand Smoke. I think the comments section of that post is more informative than the discussion here. I think you would all find it challenging and I would be interested in your responses.

I would second WW's suggestion.

"That an 8-year old boy, on his own supposed initiative, can legally undergo sex-change "hormone therapy" in California is just staggering insanity. The fact that "doctors" in California are free to sexually destroy this child without fear of legal consequences is an unfathomable crime itself. That these two witches are legally free, not only to flout their depravities openly, but also to corrupt a young boy in this way - well, there are no words. Have we no prisons for beastly women like these?"

Again, go to SHS. Anyway, part of the problem is the misinformation and inflammatory language in Jeff C's original post. My approach when I see something like that is assume that there is more to it. Too many times folks around here take things at face value, have an emotional, over-the-top reaction, and write from their gut. As should be clear by now to those who have done their homework:

"That an 8-year old boy, on his own supposed initiative, can legally undergo sex-change "hormone therapy" in California is just staggering insanity."

That would be insanity but it isn't true. Puberty blocking hormones aren't nothing but they aren't sex change hormones. Also the implication here is that the kid, on a whim, is initiating this while the protocols require a way more involved process.

"The fact that "doctors" in California are free to sexually destroy this child without fear of legal consequences is an unfathomable crime itself."

Not true, one may disagree with the protocols (presumably with at least some semblance of a reason) but any doctor who did this solely on the whim of an eight year old (or his parents) would be putting his license and wealth at risk.

"That these two witches are legally free, not only to flout their depravities openly, but also to corrupt a young boy in this way - well, there are no words. Have we no prisons for beastly women like these?"

I believe they are Jewish not Wiccan but, in any case, their religion is irrelevant as is their sexual orientation. The "corruption" language is way overwrought, of course.

"I merely note the obvious fact that your preaching in favor of "evidence" and against "epithets" conflicts with your practice, which relies heavily on name-calling whenever the facts don't suit you."

Steve, first you have to actually supply some evidence. Your contribution to the discussion so far has consisted of angst ridden hand wringing over same-sex couples being able to adopt, some rather vile name calling, and an appeal to vigilantism.

WJS, to his credit, has pointed out the sexual orientation of the couple shouldn't be part of the discussion. Street language provides no analytical insights. When an individuals religion is irrelevant to the topic at hand and the term used to describe that religion is unusual, to say the least, expect others to hear the dog whistle and understand that there is likely a sneer behind it.

Steve, I just saw your latest post and it is clear that you don't understand the etiology of this condition. This isn't a simple (and passing) condition. It's persistent and clearly a deeply internal matter. Hint: JESTOR + the google scholar.

Congratulations on the improvement in language but we still need to establish the relevance of their religion and sexual orientation. Of course, that can't be don't as it doesn't exist.

Oop's the Chicken is contageous; s/b

"Of course, that can't be done as it doesn't exist."

"I'm more than willing to point out the tendencies towards willful ignorance, insurrection, and treason that lurk in the hearts of many "Americans" due to their cleaving to certain religious and geographical loyalties."

Al, Defender of the Fact, Emperor of Evidence, fell Enemy of Ideology, will not hesitate to make citizenship subject to ideology. Insurrection, treason, false Americans: these are the truenames of all non-Liberals. He speaks only of fact, clinical evidence, and never with emotion; can you not see it?

The rest of us can see well enough that Al no less than Lydia, Jeff Culbreath, Step2, me or anyone else, has an orthodoxy his politics is the business to impose. This secularist dodge that they bear no orthodoxy and impose no belief is truly the most tiresome and childish rhetorical fraud abroad in the land.

And with this last comment we see that Al's beef with Jeff really is what? -- merely rhetorical in nature? He really just wishes Jeff wouldn't talk so harshly of his opponents?

But Al belies his own rhetorical pedantry. If only Jeff would instead say "coerce the rich to spread their property by force," Al would nod like a swaddled babe. If only Jeff had reserved the word "witch" for the wizards of Wall Street. I've spoken harshly of high financiers many times; I do not recall a rebuke from Al for those excesses.

Or if Jeff should venture the view that, anticipating Katyn, the officer corps of the South should have been slaughtered -- why, this rhetorical flourish of vengeance upon men now a century and a half gone, might meet with a cheer from our clincal and emotionless friend.

Yes, Al, we know your estimate of the facts. "Just the facts, ma'am" is your creed. Like the fact that you fake "Americans," you dirty insurrectionists, should have your throats slit.

Remind me again why it is only my false consciousness that tells me that my primary obligation in American politics is to form coalitions in order to stop folks like you?

William Wilcox (cc al): life is short.

At what point do you think that the First Things thread to which you link...

http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/secondhandsmoke/2011/09/30/human-experimentation-the-real-issue-in-stopping-gender-variant-boys-puberty/#comment-35985

...gets interesting?

I've plowed through about a third of it, so far, and come across a lot of nothing.

al: OK, I'll bite: just exactly what *is* the "etiology" of trans-sexualism, which I, unlike you, "don't understand?"

tick-tock. tick-tock.

al: let me help you out. To make sense of what seems to be your position, here are some of the claims that I think you need to go with:

(1) the human soul is essentially gendered, male or female.

(2) the human body is essentially gendered, male or female.

(3) the human body and soul are distinct and separable, à la Descartes .

(4) It is possible for a male gendered human soul to be, through some sort of accident, united with a female gendered human body, and vice versa.

(5) It is possible for such a mis-match to be remedied by, say, a combination of hormone therapy & surgery.

There are, of course, even more radical solutions available, and, knowing you, I expect that you'll go for one of those.

So surprise me. Say something interesting.

I'd guess it would go more like this, Steve:

1) There is no such thing as a human soul.

2) Some human organisms are really unhappy with a body that is associated with the concept of "maleness" or "femaleness" in our culture.

3) When they get sufficiently unhappy and psychologically unstable, doctors can reliably discover when radically altering their bodies so as to associate them with the opposite gender will make them much more subjectively happy and stable.

4) The foregoing considerations, evaluated in utilitarian terms, are the only relevant considerations.

we still need to establish the relevance of their religion and sexual orientation.

We do?

You mean, "Actions speak louder than words", and
"One picture is worth a thousand words", and
"He teaches best who teaches by example"
are all completely useless in coming up with possible avenues of inquiry about the causes and influences for this kid's clear abnormality? There is not even a remote possibility that this kid wouldn't have been as strongly conflicted if he had been raised in a wholesome family situation from birth?

All but especially Steve Burton,

I have some time ago adopted a policy not to get myself involved in threads with the commenter who shall not be named (sort of like Voldemort, I don't even like to mention his name). For many of the reasons already mentioned here, I find him ideologically blinkered, intellectually shallow, tediously predictable, etc., etc.

Having said that, I couldn't resist reading through this thread and came across Steve's Oct. 7, 9:51 PM comment and laughed out loud. How many times has a blog post done that to you? Just a reminder why this blog is a special place.

P.S. The Star Trek episode was fun too!

Puberty blocking hormones aren't nothing but they aren't sex change hormones.

Well, they are sex disruption hormones and, yes, they will upset development. You do realize that sex change surgery, when it is done, is classified as cosmetic surgery, as the person does not develop a functioning womb or in any real sense becomes female.n they are living an elaborate lie. The person cannot assist in the creation of life in any normal sense. This is simply a perverted form of Christ's quote from Matthew 19:12:

For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from [their] mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive [it], let him receive [it].

These are just eunuch made by men.

Is it better to have children even in a state of sexual imperfection or to renounce the ability to beget children by a conscious act of mutilation, for that is what gender-changing surgery is, since nothing is physically broken and in need of repair? No one knows how sexual perceptions are made in the brain. No one is even trying that hard to find out ( or are they). I, unlike most, here, have actually looked at the literature, not mere magazine articles. These sex-change doctors are doing no science, merely palliation. If I were in such an unfortunate situation, I would let scientist do all of the reasonable experiments they could to find out what is going on, instead of relying on psychological quackery in this area (not all psychology is quackery, obviously, but many issues have been much more extensively studied). That way, their unfortunate circumstances might be turned into something beneficial instead of something merely self-seeking.

The Chicken

Sorry about the italics. Only the first sentence was supposed to be so.

I may offer myself to science to see if they can find the brain region responsible for lapses in proof-reading :(

The Chivken

italics, off..presto...

The Non-italicizes Chicken(I hope...)

I can't resist. An Internet classic...

A Little Poem About Spell Checkers

Eye halve a spelling chequer
It came with my pea sea
It plainly marques four my revue
Miss steaks eye kin knot sea.

Eye strike a key and type a word
And weight four it two say
Weather eye am wrong oar write
It shows me strait a weigh.

As soon as a mist ache is maid
It nose bee fore two long
And eye can put the error rite
Its rare lea ever wrong.

Eye have run this poem threw it
I am shore your pleased two no
Its letter perfect awl the weigh
My chequer tolled me sew.

In reply to Steve, the SecondHand Smoke thread is full of references to publications of scientific research into the phenomena of gender confusion. The references provided by Zoe Brain have to be dealt with. The conclusion you reach from examining the studies may be different from Brain's but if you are interested in truth I think you should be willing to consider the arguments provided. I realize the tread was long and it was difficult for me to make it through and some was beyond my ability to understand. Here is a condensed reply to a question I posed. She agrees that I summarized her position correctly but added misc. caveats:

"If I understand you correctly, you believe that research has confirmed that an individual’s gender identity is determined by brain biological structures shaped by hormones in the womb and is not subject to change."
Yes, but with the following caveats. 1. Biology isn't binary. That means Gender Identity isn't binary either, while most identify strongly as men, others women, others will identify as neither. 2. Gender isn't binary, it's not a single measure, it's multi-dimensional. People can be "masculine" in some ways, "feminine" in others. 3. While we can observe that certain feminised brain structures always result in a female gender identity, we have reason to believe that's a result of mixing with other people. We compare (usually unconsciously) how we feel, emote, hear, smell, our instinctive body language, perceptions, cognitive patterns etc (all things "hard-wired") with others, and come to identify with the group that best corresponds with ourselves. This means that someone brought up with no contact with other humans would have no concept of gender. 4. Most "Gendered Behaviour" is a social construct. That that isn't often is exaggerated by social pressure- small inherent differences get amplified. It's more true to say that there's no difference between the genders than to say that the differences are all biological - but both are wrong. Bottom line though: yes, your summary of what I'm saying is correct.

I was especially interested in the Masked Chicken's opinion and response to the research cited in the SecondHand Smoke thread, since there are many studies mentioned. It is not my area of expertise so it was difficult for me to evaluate if Zoe Brain's interpretation of the studies was valid.

William Wilcox,

Yes, I read through Zoe Brain's comments and, if I recall, I scanned some of the articles. Very cursory science, filled with problematic interpretation or else science not exactly germane to the topic. I was initially dismayed at what Zoe Brain was putting forth until I actually thought about it and looked at some of the research she cited. I was not impressed.

As I mentioned, way upthread, there is a difference between perception of gender and gender. Perception of gender can be influenced both internally and externally, from within the brain and from outside of it. We do not understand which structures in the brain give rise to gender perception, yet. We do know that psychological forces can have an influence to some extent, but even that extent is not clearly defined. The reason we don't have clear data is simple: we can't do either invasive or psychologically unethical experiments. The locus of activity of most brain regions have, traditionally, been discovered by observing brain lesions during stokes or other injuries. Nothing has really happened in this area to pin-point the sexual identity region, if it is a singular region, as far as I know. Likewise, no one would be allowed to see if they could make a person, young or old, believe they are of the opposite gender by psychological manipulation. I mean, it would not be impossible, in theory, to run these experiments, especially given today's virtual technology, but it would be unethical.

That being said, gender, as a physiological accident, is fairly well understood. The ideal male and ideal female have well-defined biological differences. Gender surgery is cosmetic, only. Now, in one-hundred years, when virus vector DNA replacement become possible, it will be possible to re-write someone's DNA to give them the actual physiology of the other gender, but Heaven help up should science advance that far without an associated metaphysical wisdom.

Let me answer some of Zoe's points:

Zoe: 1) Biology isn't binary. That means Gender Identity isn't binary either...

Chicken: This does not follow. The physiology of gender is binary. There is no Z chromosome with regards to sex (note: there is a Z chromosome, but it does something else) that would give a third determinative element. There is only x and y. That means biology is definitely binary in the same sense that adding two numbers together is a binary operation. X+Y = male, X+X = female with other variations, such as XXY, or XXX being variations on the theme - subtle perturbations of the binary forms, which do not constitute a new gender.

Biology is binary. These are facts of biochemistry. Gender identity is a perceptual activity and the brain is notoriously plastic, filled with imagination and gullibility. A certain part of the gender perception is nature, a certain part is nurture. Modern science seems to be leaning more towards nature.

Zoe: 2. Gender isn't binary, it's not a single measure, it's multi-dimensional. People can be "masculine" in some ways, "feminine" in others.

Chicken: Gender is binary. There is no third gender, although there can be admixtures to a limited degree. The perception of gender, on the other hand, while still binary (since no one has yet defined a third gender), may admit of more subtle interpretations in qualia for different activities. Some people, when they play music, have a feminine quality and some a masculine quality, but does that make a male musician less masculine? Not really. These perceptions, to some extent, belong to the Platonic Ideals, not on-the-ground gender facts. Many Feminine sounding male musicians have been known to make excellent fathers and maybe even football players. This, however, is not a gender issue. It is an aesthetic issue.

Zoe: 3. While we can observe that certain feminised brain structures always result in a female gender identity, we have reason to believe that's a result of mixing with other people.

Chicken: No and no. We can directly observe the effects of testosterone on the male rat brain. Interestingly, testosterone is metabolized into an estrogen derivative that passes the blood-brain barrier and it is this estrogen derivative that causes the masculinization of the male brain. Female brains are not feminized by estrogen. This will happen even if the rats are in isolation.

Zoe: We compare (usually unconsciously) how we feel, emote, hear, smell, our instinctive body language, perceptions, cognitive patterns etc (all things "hard-wired") with others, and come to identify with the group that best corresponds with ourselves. This means that someone brought up with no contact with other humans would have no concept of gender.

Chicken: This is pure conjecture. The only way to prove this is by looking at ferral children or children raised in isolation. There is such a disruption in their social development, in tot, that it is hard to separate out the effects of either nature or nurture on the gender issue. It is unclear that simply because one has never heard of the word, red, that one hasn't experienced it. A ferral child may have experienced their gender identity but have no vocabulary to express it. We do know that language centers atrophy if not developed by the age of about seven. Also, no one can run an experiment to prove or disprove Zoe's hypothesis, since it would be unethical. That means, the evidence is minimal, at best.

Zoe: Most "Gendered Behaviour" is a social construct.

Chicken: Not for rats, it isn't. There are many chemicals that will alter gender behavior in rats. I said gender behavior. We have no idea is rats have anything like a gender identity.

Ultimately, Zoe's comments, while interesting, are not, really, as I read them, unbiased and they show a rather shallow metaphysics.

I've been really grumpy and heavy-handed with my comments the last week while trying to do objective analysis. I appreciate Zoe's comments and I hope she takes my comments as nothing other than an analysis of issues, not people and certainly not her.

Also, I think this will be my last comment on this thread, as to get any deeper into this, I will have to go through and do much more extensive research than the subject really requires from a common sense Christian point of view.

The Chicken

Oh, one more thing. I might as well beat Al to the punch. No doubt he will throw my words back in my face:

"Ultimately, Chicken's comments, while interesting, are not, really, as I read them, unbiased and they show a rather shallow metaphysics."

Maybe so, maybe so...although maybe uninformed is a better word, because being biased isn't always a bad thing.

The Chicken

Steve, you really should go over to the SHS thread and I also would be interested the The Chicken's comments (just saw them and it is telling that they wind up with a theological observation).

Meanwhile, if you were to state that apples float up from the tree, one need not be on the cutting edge of physics to point out that they fall to the ground.

Therapies based on your notions have been tried and they failed. What is dispositive for me are the experiences of the few folks I have known who actually had hormones or surgery as well as the numerous studies that show the results of the present approach to be far better then past approaches. We can only go with the current state of our knowledge and everything seems to point in the direction you abhor.

I see no value in discussing this in terms of imaginary notions like souls.

"Transgenderism is not fatal."

Actually it is. The suicide rate (successful and unsuccessful) is quite shocking.

"Transgenderism is not fatal."

Actually it is. The suicide rate (successful and unsuccessful) is quite shocking.

Yes, it is shocking: 41% have attempted suicide. That's even higher than the rate of 28% among homosexuals. By contrast, the attempted suicide rate is just 4% of the general population.

Now then, what I can't find in the stats are the "before and after" numbers. Hormonal and surgical sex-change procedures are supposed to make these people happier. Do they? Does the attempted suicide rate drop off once they get the bodies they think they want?

As an aside, the rate of AIDS infection in the "transgender" population is four times that of the general population. (But of course, we are assured, transgenderism has nothing to do with homosexuality!)

Interesting how the left touts such tragic facts in defense of transgenderism and homosexuality, rather than coming to the obvious conclusion that these afflictions make people miserable.

From a website titled "Sex Change Regret", research out of Sweden:

http://www.sexchangeregret.com/research

Persons with transsexualism, after sex reassignment, have considerably higher risks for mortality, suicidal behaviour, and psychiatric morbidity [diseased state] than the general population. Our findings suggest that sex reassignment, although alleviating gender dysphoria, may not suffice as treatment for transsexualism.

"I see no value in discussing this in terms of imaginary notions like souls."

Hey, al, I can go with "minds," or even "brains," if you'd be more comfortable with that. But you end up with the same problem: to make hormone treatments & "reparative surgery" respectable, I think you pretty much have to endorse *some* sort of psychological gender essentialism.

Interesting link Jeff. The guy clearly (and literally, it seems) is on a mission (at Southwest Community Church, one of the the numerous fundie churches in the interior of Southern California),

He offers a point of view but, given his obvious political and religious agenda, we should apply a grain or so of salt. Recall the numbers I posted from the Thai clinic. The average age for folks from the USA/Canada was 50. One of the studies from Walt's site found a break point at 30 and quality of the work was also key. Given the natural ravages of time and the varying skill sets of surgeons, that seems reasonable. Anyway, based on a casual reading of the protocols and a facial reading of some of the stories, I was able to spot quite a few issues in those stories. There are a lot of incompetent shrinks out there.

http://www.go2southwest.com/media/ci_scc_rss.xml

"Life Lessons - Walt Heyer
Thursday, February 17, 2011 5:00 AM
A man whose journey through a life riddled with struggle following sex-change gender reassignment surgery shares his story of regret, and how his relationship with Jesus Christ has since brought about total healing and restoration."

Reminiscent of certain former Trotskyites, he appears to have bought into a whole new ideological agenda.

http://americansfortruth[dot]com/issues/transgender-general/

Jeff, the world is full of unhappy people who are looking for, well, something:

"Seeking comfort, Michelle landed in the pews of Fort Lauderdale's Calvary Chapel, South Florida's largest megachurch, which claims about 18,000 Protestant congregants. Soon she began speaking with a biblical counselor, Deacon Craig Houston. God would not accept Michelle, he told her. Over the next few weeks, the church had her watch an anti-transsexual video and toss some of her books, Berke says.

"Do you think God makes mistakes?" Berke remembers Houston asking Michelle.

"I couldn't argue with that," Berke says. "I immediately decided to go back."

He cut off all of his hair and stopped wearing makeup. The brow lift had left Berke's bald head with a thin rainbow of a scar from ear to ear. For two weeks he wore giant T-shirts to conceal the 36-Ds. Then, in what felt like a miracle, the church agreed to pay for the removal of the breast implants.

Soon, though, he lost interest in the church. "I couldn't get myself to believe that a guy rose from the dead," he says, shaking his head.

After again trying to commit suicide, he spent time in the hospital and then returned home to find it had been burglarized. Berke immediately traded in his Nissan Altima for a Harley. He rode around for three days "ready for war," he says. On the third day, he pulled up to Calvary Chapel and burst through the doors with a picture of his female self in one hand. "This is who I used to be, and I was happy to be her," he announced.

After being asked to leave the church, he went home and kicked in the door to his oven. Then he had a mental breakdown."

http://www.miaminewtimes.com/2007-10-11/news/a-tranny-s-remorse/