Castrating Boys And Adolescents

[YankeeClipper (imported)]

The problem with delaying puberty is that the skeletal (for example) secondary sexual characteristics occur during the period of growth from approximately 10 years of age (or whenever puberty starts) until around age 18 when the bone growth centers fuse.

Thus, you

effect the growth of the individual in

many bodily systems in addition to the reproductive system and the visabl

e secondary sexual characteristics.

In those with ambiguous sex differentiation this is quite another issue. Their physical growth is already affected but in individuals who are normally gendered, and who fall within your criteria, physical growth may already be an issue that is complicating identity formation and contributing to their issues with sexuality.

YC, it is a very, very, complicated issue, in addition to a controversial one.

We must consider, just becaus

e something can be done, doesn't mean that it should be done.

How would you like it if you ended a 6'4 man at 22, when your sexual identity had been recognized at age 2 or 3 by Dr. Zucker, yet forced to go through puberty and every day looking less and less like your mind told you should be?

Nothing can be done after puberty to reverse so many of the changes to the body occur without extensive and expensive surgery: Adam's Apple, height, hands (the length of the 2nd and 4th fingers), voice require thinning of the vocal cords, etc... Do you want to Bradley?

Or would would prefer to be a 5'10 woman when when your sexual identity had been recognized at age 2 or 3 by Dr. Spack and allowed to postpone puberty until 16? (the others in the broadcast?)

Fertility is not effected by blockers.

Any child that overcomes all of the social (family) pressures to conform mind to match the body has to be allowed to postpo

ne puberty.

Thus, you effect the growth of the individual in many bodily systems in addition to the reproduct

ive system and the visabl

e secondary sexual characteristics.

This is very true when puberty is not delayed. It is exactly thos

e secondary sexual characteristic

that cause so much difficulty for adult transsexuals that have gone through puberty.

I live in the Boston, and I am familiar with "Bridge Over Troubled Waters."

The other issue that comes to the fore here is that many transsexuals are also thought of as homosexual as they are drawn the the same sex as the characteristics of the body. Rather, they are heterosexual transsexuals. Many of the youth (mostly male) that end up at the "Bridge Over Troubled Waters" have been thrown out of their home because the parents cannot accept the transsexuality of the child. Working withe "Bridge" on a limited basis, I've the results first hand: self-medication: drugs and alcohol.

How many more children have to be a Bradley or David Reimer before we stop stop the coercive therapies that Dr. Money used and Dr. Zucker uses now?

How many more children would you have grow up with constant turmoil caused by Dr. Zucker approach. What support does Dr. Zucker provide after puberty. He claims 80% using coercion, and of that 80% how many truly remain comfortable in the adult body they were forced to accept.

Why take the choice out the hands of the child until they are young adults. Give them the time to determine for themselves which is correct. They have to live with the decision that is made. The doctor and parents are not mind-readers. The child is usually pretty good at that.

Postponing puberty is not the same as starting the transition. Keep in mind that these are children that are in considerable distress when forced to live as the body indicates by doctors and parents.

I always hate to use the words "Guinea Pig." BUT that is exactly what we have here with transsexual children:

Dr. Spack, let them grow as they see themselves (non-coercive, 100% success rate).

Dr. Zucker, Mandate they grow up as the body form dictates (coercive, 80% success rate).

At present, I do not know how far the doctors track results for into adulthood.

I do know that of the post-SRS people here, they always speak of how hard it is to transition as an adult. Of those transsexuals here that have gone through SRS, that have yet gone though SRS, or have chosen not to, all speak of the difficulty and expense involved.

When do we stoop using transsexuals children as "Guinea Pigs" and stop using coercive techniques that was proven so disastrous since the days of Dr. Money?

Can you provide citations that are contrary to those of both Dr. Zucker himself and those of Dr. Spack provide?

Why do some of those here (no finger pointer meant) still propose that a therapy that has a 80% success rate using coercion is appropriate when there is a therapy with a 100% succes

s rate without using coercion.

Using a coercive therapy with a lower success when a non-coer

cive therapy is available is simply unethical. In the end, that is the crux of my position.

We must consider, just because something can be done, doesn't mean that it should be done. Yes, but in this case, ether is a "should be done" allow or delay puberty, is a deliberate course of action.

-YC

[YankeeClipper (imported)]

I recall that the psychiatrist talked about John Money. Someone else much later named Dr. Money an ethically challenged sexologist. I own two or three of Money's books; they probably are still worth reading, but I find myself resisting referring to them because of his distorting that famous case. We need to take great care in prescribing what other people ought to do with their sexual identities. I think that is the thrust of this thread. This is a place where the work of Michel Foucault bears on the discussion. Everyone owes the memory David Reimer that respect.

Thank you for your comments. YES, Dr. Money is an ethically challenged sexologist. That he REFUSES to comment now about his "success" in David Reimer's case speaks volumes.

Everyone owes the memory David Reimer that respect.

Yes, we do.

-YC

[YankeeClipper (imported)]

When I started ninth grade in the late sixties, in Southern California, over 95% of the boys in my grade had started puberty. I remember being startled to see a boy in the ninth grade but in a different P.E. class who looked completely prepubescent. He might have been the only prepubescent boy who had P.E. at that time.

When and where did you go to high school? Was it during a time of food shortages or rationing?

Well, there is several answers for the first observation. 1) puberty occurs at different ages and rates. 2) starting age for school is based on the birthday of the child. In my case, my birthday was December 19; starting date is January 1st, so I was one of the youngest starting 1st grade. Anyone with a birthday after December 31st, was almost a year older then I was. I start puberty early though, so in the showers in the 7th grade (first year we took showers after PE), I was easily as mature as the boys in my grade, usually more so. Even in high school there were sophomores and juniors that were still prepubescent.

Question 2: For me, I was in high school 1969 through 1973, and there were no food shortages then.

-YC

[A-1 (imported)]

YC,

I am tired of researching, but I am sure that I read the following in Matt Ridley's book, "GENOME"...

It seems that there is a theory that sexual preference is not entirely controlled by the Chromosomes "X" and "Y".

Even so, the book on page 117 describes a "Gay Gene" as follows,

"....if a man was gay, the most likely other member of the previous generation to be gay was not his father but his mother's brother.

That immediately suggested to Hamer that the gene might be on the X chromosome, the only set of nuclear genes a man inherets exclusively from his mother. By comparing a set of genetic markers between gay men and straight men in the families in his sample, he quickly found a candidate region in Xq28, the tip of the long arm of the chromosome. Gay men shared the same version of this marker seventy-five per cent of the time; straight men shared a different version of the gene seventy-five percent of the time. Statistically, that ruled out coincidence with ninety-nine percent confidence.

In lay terms, that is one chance in 100 that the gene does NOT affect sexual orientation.

BUT!, I also read where there was a estrogen/testosterone 'flooding' of the embryo at a very early stage by an entirely different mechanism that affected sexual orientation, but I cannot find the place. It is in one of Matt Ridley's two books that I mention here in this post...

This would explain the difference between Gay and Transexual.

If you were a genetic male who was 'flooded' with estrogen as an embryo, then you would feel 'female' neurologically. Recall that the neural tube that gives rise to the Central Nervous System is the first thing that develops after implantation. Alternatively, if a genetic female was 'flooded' with the hormone testosterone, then she may feel attracted to the female sex.

Note that this is only a theory, but it sort of fits what we are talking about here much better than any theory that has been proposed in this thread.

As science progresses we are likely to find out what these mechanisms are, but we are not there yet. SO, your proposal WILL yield mistakes, because even science cannot discount the role of NURTURE.

So much so in fact, that the successor to GENOME, it turns out, that was also written by Matt Ridley was "NATURE VIA NUTURE".

My dear Mr. Clipper, your library is not complete without copies of these two books, and you will likely find within their covers the answers to some of your questions, and some excellent arguments to boot!

You have some good arguments and some good points. Maybe these books can help you.

[coinflipper_21 (imported)]

First, let me say that this has been one of the most fascinating and informative threads that I have seen develop on these boards. I don't have much to personally contribute except for an incident that I observed.

I was in the waiting area for my endocrinologists office when a family came out. There was a father, mother, and two teenage children. The girl, about 15, perfectly normal and the boy, about 16, tall, lean, but almost feminine looking. The parents were very happy as the doctor assured them that with treatment to suppress the tumor, the boy would develop into a man normally.

It was obvious to me that the boy had the same tumor that I do, a prolactinoma. The high prolactin level had suppressed his testosterone production and kept him from developing ma

l[quote="YankeeClipper (imported)" ti

me=1211783100]
e secondary sexual characteristics.
[/quote]


The happy attitude of the family was immediately changed when the boy said, "I'm not so sure that I want to."

I thought that the father was going to explode. The doctor took them back into his office where they remained for another half-hour, and they weren't saying much to each other when they came out.

That was eight years ago. I wonder what happened to him and if he is in this group?

[A-1 (imported)]

First, let me say that this has been one of the most fascinating and informative threads that I have seen develop on these boards. I don't have much to personally contribute except for an incident that I observed.

I was in the waiting area for my endocrinologists office when a family came out. There was a father, mother, and two teenage children. The girl, about 15, perfectly normal and the boy, about 16, tall, lean, but almost feminine looking. The parents were very happy as the doctor assured them that with treatment to suppress the tumor, the boy would develop into a man normally.

It was obvious to me that the boy had the same tumor that I do, a prolactinoma. The high prolactin level had suppressed his testosterone production and kept him from developing ma

800]
l[quote="YankeeClipper (imported)" ti

me=1211783100]
e secondary sexual characteristics.
[/quote]


The happy attitude of the family was immediately changed when the boy said, "I'm not so sure that I want to."

I thought that the father was going to explode. The doctor took them back into his office where they remained for another half-hour, and they weren't saying much to each
[/quote]
other when they came out.

That was eight years ago. I wonder what happened to him and if he is in this group?

Isn't it obvious why the boy would say such a thing? Look at his male role model.

You love your children despite how they turn out, not because of how they turn out. You must support their life choices and decisions, except when they are destructive. Choosing how you want to live your life is NOT a destructive decision.

Overbearing attitudes go nowhere.

[YankeeClipper (imported)]

YC,

I am tired of researching, but I am sure that I read the following in Matt Ridley's book, "GENOME"...

Please, don't stop. When I said "you" I meant it on a broad basis, not you alone.

It seems that there is a theory that sexual preference is not entirely controlled by the Chromosomes "X" and "Y".

As been discovered also true in transsexuals.

Even so, the book on page 117 describes a "Gay Gene" as follows,

In lay terms, that is one chance in 100 that the gene does NOT affect sexual orientation.

BUT!, I also read where there was a estrogen/testosterone 'flooding' of the embryo at a very early stage by an entirely different mechanism that affected sexual orientation, but I cannot find the place. It is in one of Matt Ridley's two books that I mention here in this post...

This would explain the difference between Gay and Transexual.

I am gay. I had no interest in anything at all girlish. I also never fitted any of the ugly stereotypes that people think of about gay and lesbian. That is in strong contrast to the child that wants to be a boy or girl when the body is the other.

If you were a genetic male who was 'flooded' with estrogen as an embryo, then you would feel 'female' neurologically.

Then let that child grow up as 'female' neurologically. Adjust the body to match the mind.

Recall that the neural tube that gives rise to the Central Nervous System is the first thing that develops after implantation. Alternatively, if a genetic female was 'flooded' with the hormone testosterone, then she may feel attracted to the female sex.

And if, growing up, he (mentally) show severe emotional distress when forced to be a girl and is comfortable as a boy, the child is a heterosexual transsexual.

Genetics (XX or XY) are not the ultimate determinant in sexual identity. They do have a very strong effect on the physical configuration of the body

. Alternatively, if a genetic female was 'flooded' with the hormone testosterone, then she may feel attracted to the female sex,

and be a heterosexual transsexual if expressing the opposite sex, if they have no discomfort as they are, and drawn to the same sex, their are homosexual.

Note that this is only a theory, but it sort of fits what we are talking about here much better than any theory that has been proposed in this thread.

As science progresses we are likely to find out what these mechanisms are, but we are not there yet.

Gravity is still only a theory, but the fact that underpin it are very solid.

This the exact reverse from what Christian conservatives use when they dismissive speak of "theory." "It's only a theory..."

In the sense you mean, it is one theory among several, and to date, the facts available support this theory rather than any other

theory that has been proposed in this thread.

I agree completely. Now, we have to put theory into practice and get rid of coercive approaches in favor of non-coercive one. Since the facts are coalescing around Dr. Spack's approach, that should be the approached used. How many more Bradleys do there have to be to rule Dr's. Money's and Zucker's approach. How many successful programs like Dr' Spack's are used before that become the accepted norm of treatment of transsexual children?

A-1, Don't feel I'm asking you, these questions are meant for everyone here.

So far, the facts support the theory. In the scientific realm theory is supported by the accumulation of facts.

SO, your proposal WILL yield mistakes, because even science cannot discount the role of NURTURE.

I'd rather have the child/teenager/adult live with a choice they make, rather than have the choice taken away from them before they

old enough to make an informed decision,

before puberty occurs. And so far as documented the nurture approach has a failure rate of 20%, the nature approach has a 0% failure rate (supported in a truly nurturing (supporting) environment.

All I'm asking for, in the end, is hold puberty off long enough for them to decide. Delaying puberty is far simpler to reverse that allowing puberty to progress, and then try to undo the results that occur during puberty.

We are seeing the results of nature versus nurture. When nurture is being used to the exclusion of nature (coercive in nature), the success rates are lower than when nature is allowed to prevail and is nurtured (non-coercive).

It also would appear that the Brtadley's parents never sought a second opinion to support or deny Dr. Zucker approach. I hope that they will seek guidance with a better professional before he starts puberty, and eliminate the turmoil that the parents speak of. I see the turmoil only getting worse as puberty starts and continues.

Remember, these children here are not ambiguous

in their thinking, they know clearly that are a boy or a girl.

So much so in fact, that the successor to GENOME, it turns out, that was also written by Matt Ridley was "NATURE VIA NUTURE".

My dear Mr. Clipper, your library is not complete without copies of these two books, and you will likely find within their covers the answers to some of your questions, and some excellent arguments to boot!

You have some good ar

guments and some good points. Maybe these books can help you.

Accepted. Those aren't the only books missing from my library. Jesus seems to have a considerably broader collection that I have.

When were these two books published, how much coverage was given to the issue of transsexual children, and what positions does he hold on transsexual children, if any? Do the books have documented cases for both approaches, and what the success rate for each approach is.

It still come back to, let the "boy" be the girl she really is. Nurture starts at day one, giving the infant a a boy or girl name (though some names like Adrian are appropriate for both), pink or blue colors used in the room and clothing, etc...

Does anyone involved here have copies of the two books referred here?

Also, I'd likes others to participate here. I created this board, and I hold strong opinions, but I am not God. Yes, I do hold strong views, and I try to state them eloquently (I hope) and possibly too strongly at times, with the documentation I have to support my position.

I'd like others to provide additional sources that can provide further support for both position. There have to be more that the three citations I use.

What I can't get past is that Dr. Zucker admits to a 20% failure rate. Remember these are children that are expressing at 2 to 3 years of age, and until then, they have been raised in conformity with the sex of the body. We have members here that were never able to express and now they are living with the results.

Transsexual children have a high rate of self-mutilation and suicide during puberty and as young adults when forced to live in conformance to the body; very low rates when allowed to grow up as they express.

There are several issues that skew the results in both directions. How many people aren't here because they are in Dr. Zucker 80% rate and are comfortable, or uncomfortable as they as are (but don't know of this site, the name is now mis-leading). How many people just grew up as they were told to and did, grudgingly or not. The children and family involved are those that have the greatest turmoil within the family as whole, so the various therapies involved are only used for those cases. They exclude those cases where there is limited or no expression of the true sexual identity. What we don't have here is a group of people that have been through the therapy that Dr. Spack uses. No need for them to be here, they are happy as they are.

Boston Children Hospital is recognized nationally for their work with children. Dr. Spack has become an evangelist for the program. both within the hospital, and now outside the hospital.

Over time, much of Dr. Money's theories have been discredited. How many children, now adults, are suffering from his mistakes or have already committed suicide?

I can't get past the coercion used by Dr's Money and Zucker. In David's case, he was an XY male, and never self-identified as a female. Conversely, children like Bradley (also XY) and other do self-identify as female, no matter how strong the nurture component is. (I don't like the term "nurture" to be used when coercion is used, to me "nurture" mean "to support and let grow," nowhere in the definition does of the word coerce appear) and I can't get past the near un-reversibility in allowing the child to progress through puberty when a child is expressing so strongly.

Though a poor comparison, I'm also left-handed. When I first started drawing with my first crayons, I picked them up in my left hand. No matter how hard tried to get me to use my right hand, I would immediately put crayon, pen, or pencil in left hand. Take it out of my left hand, put in my right, it goes right back into my left hand.

I am glad to see the serious level of rational discussion that has been on-going on this thread, but would I like to see even more.

Everyone, please in keep mind that while A-1 and I are involved in one of several serious discussions, he is not directing his observations to me alone. We both want additional discourse on this issue.

Thank you all

Bruce (YC )

[YankeeClipper (imported)]

OK all. We now have two serious topics present in this thread. (And with little or no flaming, let's continue that.)

The original one was about boys that want to remain boys permanently.

We now have a second discussion going on here concerning transsexual children.

There is no way to separate them at this point, nor do I want too. (Part of this coming from adult transsexuals on other thread and here, and the other threads that cover transsexual children. Both involve postponing or permanently preventing puberty.

To some degree, the two are intertwined anyway.

Thus I am adding a new thread that will refer to this one. I hope to get even more participants in this thread, and the original title has become misleading.

We also need to get more participants that want to discuss the original topic that created this board for.

Please, if you are also active on other threads, please refer others here so that they can add additional information to this thread.

Thanks all,

-YC

[YankeeClipper (imported)]

Also from from

Being Brenda, THE GUARDIAN, London, Wednesday, 12 May 2004. (http://www.cirp.org/news/theguardian05-12-04

/)

The world of psychology learned of the failure of Money's experiment through a paper by a rival, Dr Milton Diamond, of the University of Hawaii, who eventually traced those who had taken over treatment of the twins. For Lynne Segal, the story of the experiment does not settle the nature/nurture debate one way or the other - her view, widely shared today, is that the dichotomy is false - but it shows the perils of psychologists trying to prove too much through research. "It's far too simplistic, and far too interventionist, this idea that we can control and model and shape people to prove one thing or another." Other studies are showing such statements are far too simplistic. The work of Dr. Spack and others show that such a dichotomy does exist. The question in no longer whether a dichotomy exists, only how it should be addressed. Even Dr. Zucker does not deny there are transsexual children (see further below). Dr. Money tried to create a dichotomy when none existed. Their work prove that a.) dichotomy can and does exist; and b.) dichotomy cannot be forced where there is none.

Lynne Segal: "It's far too simplistic, and far too interventionist, this idea that we can control and model and shape people to prove one thing or another."

Control and model and shape people, (i.e. coerce) force a child to live in the form the body.

Other studies are showing such statements [Lynne Segal's] are far too simplistic.

Segal posits two opposite positions as indicated in the quotes above. One: a dichotomy does not exist, and two, that we can control and model and shape a person to fit a predefined sexual identity. How many transsexuals does it take to prove that dichotomy can exist in some people.

Now, do we continue to try to coerce (control and model and shape) children and adults to take on the sexual form of the body, or do we recognize that the child is transsexual [i.e. nature] and provide truly nurturing support for that child.

I just realized the whole bloody argument is wrong! It has to be view as Nature AND Nurture (supporting what has been provided by nature.)

That is why Dr. Spack's approach works, and Dr. Money's approach failed and why Dr. Zucker continues to see a 20% failure rate. When Nature and Nurture are forced into opposition. turmoil should be the expected outcome.

What we see are adult transsexuals that go through considerable turmoil while they are forced to conform to the body shape. What happens when the control no longer exists? The child or adult reverts to the inner sexual self-identity they have of themselves.

How far out does Dr. Zucker track his test subjects: 21, 25, 30, 40 years of age? Which of these ages does he use for his claimed 80% percent success rate?

Even Dr. Zucker does not claim there are no transsexual children. His method is to force Nature and Nurture into opposition. And Dr. Zucker and her parents expect Bradley to behave as boy when even severe coercion is used and NO success has been achieved. What will happen when Bradley leaves Dr. Zucker's care. As it is now, her parents have to continuity monitor her behavior. That's nurturing care? Every chance she has, she goes back to being herself. Think back to the days when gays were "nurtured" (coerced) to be straight? Children are happiest when they are truly nurtured.

Dr. Zucker does not live with the turmoil he creates, he does not have to continue to monitor his subjects every minute. Does he even care about what happens to his subjects when are old e

nough to escape his care or run awa

y and end up at place like the "Bridge Over Troubled Waters" or worse.

That is all too predictable. As Bradley get older, her behavior continues to show deeper distress. Every single indicator shows that she is much happier when she can sneak away and be herself, and unmanageable when she is forced to be a boy.

I don't recall if I've done this in the past, but I have decided to use as the sexual identity of the sexual self-identity of the child, rather than the physical appearance of the child. (I.E. Writing of children like Bradley in the female nomenclature.)

As I have observed before, t

here is no longer a lack of proof that

Dr. Spack's approach is the better approach, "better" in this case, meaning the approach that uses both a supportive method and has a higher success rate.

Given this, I cannot see why Dr. Zucker takes such an extreme position using such coercive methods. Jesus, your comments about Dr. Zucker, please.

-Bruce (YC )

[the___ul (imported)]

well, i like how this thread is developing

from a simple and somewhat technical ethics question

it has evolved into a deep analysis of human development.

nice

originally, i registered to this board only to post into this great thread.

i guess i better do it now

but first, i better give you some background.

have you ever thought about, if the many laws, taboos and bans or our world

are really what they claim to be at their face value

or are there some deeper motives

why some possibly harmless things are so outlawed

let's talk about society

or it's ruleing class

in the context of the following theories,

it actually doesn't matter, as on the matters discussed,

the non-ruleing classes have no rights anyway

what does a society need?

first, it must protect itself.

not it's member, that's optional.

so if any member is not necessary for society,

the member will be either left out or even declared enemy.

that is, unless the member has enough influence and power for protection

and what if the society feels, that it needs a good reproduction rate?

guess who become the enemy?

another form of protection is defining who is in and who is out.

and enemy from the outside is a good reason for pulling our ranks together

a good reason for many things that would otherwise be too repressive.

should the enemy be hidden and among our own ranks, the better and merrier

we can start searching for the enemy and watching everybody

and the ones who say who the enemy is are the ones

who promise to protect us from it. no matter the cost.

but what if you must be careful, because you might find,

that you are the enemy?

what if you not only have to watch you neighbours and family

(and be ready to report to you know whom)

but you must suspect yourself of a possible treason?

if you outlaw something that no-one is actually safe against

if not actually ending up doing

but at least wanting to do it

you will get population that fears itself

and feels a constant common guilt

because everybody knows that they have potential to become a criminal.

the worst thing is, that the last solution actually works.

especially if it's connected to something we all have.

i live in an ex-soviet republic

and in soviet union, sexuality was quite a taboo

but everybody is sexual, right

and people who feel guilty because they have dirty thoughts,

they make a very obidient bunch

let's have a bit more modern example

age of consent. especially in the us

just follow the results.

kids are being arrested in the situations,

where both of them end up in jail for rape.

we have the big bad enemy

we have the just cause

who cares about the casualties, we are protecting them.

it does not matter if the process of protection can be worse

than what we are protecting against.

we are makeing a good progress with nominal collateral damage.

i read an expierince once

from the bmezine.com

where a cutter talked about the satanic panic and what she went trough.

that was sick.

but we have society, that has defined the worst crime ever

and competes in eagerness to find and report it.

what makes it worse, show me a person who (ok, sexually active person)

has not at least looked at someone illegaly young with.. well, the look

and i show you either a liar or moron, who believes his/hers own lies.

and the fear feeds on it and deepens.

do you really think, that in such an atmosphere there can be an actually rational decision?

even more, perhaps we are looking at the problem from the wrong angle

perhaps the satisfaction of the customer is not the most important factor.

perhaps what's good for the whole business is

now comes the part some of you most probably will hate me for

how bad can be the regrets of a boy who got himself neutered at young age?

he does not know the feelings he is missing

his body does not cause him problems because he has no physical needs to get what he can't have

he will be a good and tame productive citizen

at worst, a bit sad sometimes. but even that is not so sure.

so, what's the actual problems?

fear that too many boys would want it? no way

fear, that we must admit that kids are aware of their lives and sexuality?

(and sometimes want to give up at least the latter)

my suggestion (it's radical on purpose)

while there should be some age limit, it sould be very low.

but there should be mandatory waiting time and perhaps a consultation with psychologist.

and if all demands are met, snip and done.