Kangan (imported) wrote: Tue Jun 03, 2008 7:47 am
A very interesting debate. However, it would be helpful if certain parties would control their emotional outbursts. [I know - now you will go after me.... duh.]
The big problem that I see is that the child's brain is not yet mature enough to make this life changing decision. That is why we have all those laws protecting children on the books. Just because a child can verbally consent to a sex change does not mean that they are mature enough to make this decision for themselves. There is also a problem with the parents of such a child being able to properly able make such an emotional and critical decision.
Until some sort of definitive test or crtieria can be developed to objectively ascertain whether the child would benefit from a sex change, this matter will continue to be controversial and questionable.
There is no doubt that many of us would have been better off to have been castrated at a young age. Hindsight is always 100% accurate. But how many more are NOT better off? Who can say. There are too many unknown factors here, and one answer does NOT fit all.
I guess the bottom line is that each case must be decided separately. Whether the right decision is made or not will not be known until many years afterwards.
I'd definitely prefer castration after puberty despite all the contrary arguments, but that is my personal view.
Yes. I did break my own request in that one instance. Hell no, I'm no going to go after you.
And no. Delaying puberty is a far better than forcing puberty on a child that is in the wrong body. Too many parts of the body change in such a manner that make SRS far more difficult after puberty that if delayed that if puberty is delayed until the "child" is old enough to make a decision. (What age? 16, 18, 21? Whatever age is appropriate, give them the chance. Please read the citations below.)
At some point, the brain will be mature enough to make the appropriate decision involved as discussed here. Puberty should be delayed until then. Yes they may make the wrong decision, but ultimately, they should have the right to make decision, not have it make for them when they are still not old enough to make that decision on their own.
I also think that you're right about that parents are not always in the best position to make the "right" decision. But if they are not in the right decision to make the decision, then why should they have the right to do, when thir decision does NOT effect either of them, rather their child. Keep in mind though, that most of the BtG 'sand GtB's, that they have living as the opposite sex for more that just a few years and that remain comfortable living as they have been. The problem is with the effects that puberty causes (all the all physical adults know what those changes are), compared to those that not delaying cause (puberty happens later).
It is this reason that I have become out so strongly in favor of blockers. There is no longer a lack of proof that delaying puberty until age 16 is the appropriate course of action. Th critical questions are: is the child comfortable living as they allow to, or required to, and what is the success rate for each type of therapy.
Before puberty, the body is pretty much "neutral" making the transition of the body to the opposite sex far easier than after puberty. If blockers are used until later years, then they allow the person that has to live with the ultimate results of those decisions to make the decision when they are old enough to do so. Puberty can be delayed, if and until the "young adult" can make that decision for themselves.
None of the participants in the Dutch study chose to resume puberty in the sex of the body, instead, at 16, they chose to transition to the opposite sex. (I don't care what age you choose, but give them the choice.)
Dr. Spack's long-term work with transexuals shows the results of both delaying puberty and not delaying puberty.
Dr. Zucker's results (80 %) show the difficulty in not delaying puberty until post-puberty. His method can cause severe mental-health issues for candidates that are forced to go through puberty. How can a program that takes away everything that a child enjoys, and the banning of the color pink be considered non-coercive. In the citations listed below, Bradley is an excellent example of why forcing the sex of the body on to the child's mind, and puberty on a transsexual child, is so totally wrong.
Conversely, Dr.Spack's approach is non-coercive.
Give children the time necessary to make the ultimate decision that effect the remainder of their lives.
Yes, I was a boy, I always knew i was a boy, it was just what I was (and what I want to stay). For anyone here that is gay, this a good parallel to BtG's and GtB, that they come to realize that somehow they are different from what their body is, or that we have to be attracted to the opposite.
Dr. Zucker's approach mirrors exactly the type of "therapy" that was used for homosexuals. Ultimately, after much pain on the part of the patients, that did need such coercive therapy.
Using a coercive therapy with an acknowledged success rate of less than 80% compared to a non-coercive therapy with a success rate of 100% Why is the first type of therapy be used when the latter is available.
Oh, by-the-way, I did play with dolls, BUT, they were called GI Joe's.
As usual, my citations: Support Your NPR Station
13275) and Transition in childhood, Q&A
[/quote]
with Norman Spack, The Boston Globe, March 30, 2008.
13058)
At least they have a way to present, but those of here that wanted to remain boys, BtE,s how do we begin convince parents that you want to avoid puberty and the resulting effects?
-YC