This thread is quite interesting.

The question of delaying puberty is tricky. It makes sense to have the child's body in a prepubertal state IF you are going to change their sex. But it also could place the child at a disadvantage with respect their peers from the standpoint of physical size and strength.

I often wonder if I would have turned out differently, had I been more physically mature at an earlier age. It might have saved me from being the target of bullies, etc.

Speaking of that, I wonder how you keep the bullies at bay when you are a gender changing child? Switch schools and/or neighborhoods?

YankeeClipper (imported) wrote: Wed Jun 04, 2008 8:36 pm 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

I would sagest keeping the threads separated even though they can go hand in hand

for better clarity and better understanding

the reasons for the end means and at what age should it be that a male have the say

to permanently alter their own body is very important

A-1 (imported) wrote: Wed Jun 04, 2008 6:31 pm 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.

A-1, Thanks, I couldn't have said better myself.

At 16, he might have been able to stand up against his father on this one. I also wonder what was said by the doctor. Either answer could have caused the reaction that resulted.

-YC

Kangan (imported) wrote: Thu Jun 05, 2008 9:46 am This thread is quite interesting.

The question of delaying puberty is tricky. It makes sense to have the child's body in a prepubertal state IF you are going to change their sex. But it also could place the child at a disadvantage with respect their peers from the standpoint of physical size and strength.

I often wonder if I would have turned out differently, had I been more physically mature at an earlier age. It might have saved me from being the target of bullies, etc.

Speaking of that, I wonder how you keep the bullies at bay when you are a gender changing child? Switch schools and/or neighborhoods?

Attire is not an issue in and of itself, since the children dress appropriate for their sexual identity, so even as they first start school, they have no trouble in "passing."

Fortunately, all restroom have stalls, so that is not an issue, they go into the restroom that is appropriate for them (i.e. matches their attire) and use a stall.

For a girl in a boy's body, she would have been have been living as one (girl's attire),she was very young, and since girls tend to remain closer in size to each other, appearance is of little issue, thus she would not be perceived as a boy, so bullying by boys would be an unlikely to be an issue.

For a boy in a girl's body (and living as a boy), it could be harder on him as he gets older. There is some danger that bullying an occur as he get older.

Bullying is an issue that

YankeeClipper (imported) wrote: Sun May 25, 2008 7:36 pm must be addressed in an appropriate manner

by the school and fellow students.

Also, schooling can be handled in two other manners: 1) Home schooling. 2) specialty private schools, or at a public school geared to provide appropriate support.

Boston has a charter school (public paid, limited enrollment, part of the city's school system) that is for gays and lesbians (and other youth in dangerous situation, thus including transsexual youth), so entry into that school should be accessible through Dr. Spack.

Part of the school's charter is to help school age youth to get back into the educational system. Most of the students come from support centers like "Bridge Over Troubled Waters" here in Boston or in other dangerous situations.

All of the children and teens are in the school for parallel reasons, so bullying is unlikely.

New York City has at least one similar school.

I have no idea how Psychical Education is handled in this type of school.

Keep in mind that puberty starts at different ages for both boys and girls naturally in any case, we had common showers in junior high school and high school so it was obvious. When I was a senior, one my friends, a junior, showed no outward signs of puberty, and he was around 5'2, with a lithe trim body. No one tried to bully him, bullying him good way to get a beating by his friends (myself included).

For both, this would be especially true during the period of junior high school and high school, when students as in true "Physical Education" classes start (puberty commonly starts at the same time) and showers after PE are required. PE can be avoided by a Doctor's directive that the student cannot be required to participate in PE.

-YC

kennath7 (imported) wrote: Thu Jun 05, 2008 2:38 pm I would sagest keeping the threads separated even though they can go hand in hand for better clarity and better understanding

the reasons for the end means and at what age should it be that a male have the say to permanently alter their own body is very important

Part of my decision to keep the two interleaved topics together is that they (transsexual children and pre-pubertal eunuchs (and the female equivalent, does anyone here know what the term is?)

The core issue that has become central to this thread is delaying puberty in those children (and the appropriateness of it). At this point, given that some posts cover both topics at the same time, and there is no way to move messages to a new thread, or even determine what posts should be moved over.

Also, trying to keep current on an additional thread that covers much of the same concepts make it even harder than it is now.

I presently track five threads that overlap each other (often considerably).

At this point, a more appropriate title would be "Delaying Puberty in Children When Appropriate."

When I created this thread, I was looking at it from my own perspective and and of others here who are eunuchs (I am not one, and for medical reasons, can't now become one) that had desired as boys, just remain boys.

I still remember when I first started to realize that my "stuff" was getting bigger and didn't want anything to do with puberty, or the changes that would occur. I just wanted to remain the boy I had always been. Puberty only brought me things I never wanted, as is true for many others here.

It became clear over time, the thread was slowly growing to include a group of children that were transsexual that becoming included into this thread and as all 3 groups (transsexual children, boys to eunuchs, and the female equivalent) be allowed [quote="John W. (imported)" tim

YankeeClipper (imported) wrote: Tue Apr 22, 2008 9:53 pm e=1119333840]
to delay puberty until the

y are
[/quote]
old enough to make an informed decision, thus I have chosen to leave the thread as it currently is.

-YC

yc

I can see your point it dose make it easer than tracking several deferent threads at a time

This discussion has been interesting and educational for me. I agree that postponing puberty would give a boy the opportunity to WANT to become a man. Parents and authority figures decide what is best for boys (and girls).

As an example, I didn't want my male grandchildren circumcized, but the doctors did it to ALL of them because it's a routine thing to do. What if those boys grow up and wish they had NOT been circumcized. The deed is done, even when some people claim they can stretch the foreskin so that it will appear uncut. Those boys didn't have a choice! I didn't have a choice, but my sharecropper Dad didn't have the money to circumcize me and so I now have a nice foreskin.

On a more personal note, puberty was very hard on me. My genitals did not start growing until I was almost fourteen years old. That's when I learned about the joy of masturbation. I was about 21-22 when I got hair on my chest and a "treasure trail" running down to my dick and balls.

The worst part of puberty is that my voice, a boy soprano, did not change until I was almost SEVENTEEN. A boy showering after P. E. with small balls and a smaller dick who had a boy's voice caused me great embarrassment. It's a wonder that the guys didn't call me "queer"---at least to my face!!!!

So, having a delayed puberty might be a good thing for boys. It couldn't be any worse than the way things are NOW!!!!

Thanks for reading this.

Sailorboy

sailorboy (imported) wrote: Tue Jun 10, 2008 9:04 am This discussion has been interesting and educational for me. I agree that postponing puberty would give a boy the opportunity to WANT to become a man. Parents and authority figures decide what is best for boys (and girls).

What they think is "best."

sailorboy (imported) wrote: Tue Jun 10, 2008 9:04 am As an example, I didn't want my male grandchildren circumcised, but the doctors did it to ALL of them because it's a routine thing to do. What if those boys grow up and wish they had NOT been circumcised. The deed is done, even when some people claim they can stretch the foreskin so that it will appear uncut.

Never sign a "blanket" release. This give way too much latitude to the doctor. Always sign DIRECTED releases that specifically bar such procedures. (Sidenote: Most circumcisions done at birth are done at birth are done by a OBGYN. Not a urologist. OBGYN's are not trained to do circumcisions.)

sailorboy (imported) wrote: Tue Jun 10, 2008 9:04 am Those boys didn't have a choice! I didn't have a choice, but my sharecropper Dad didn't have the money to circumci

se me and so I now have a nice foreskin.

Actually, you were given the choice, and you chose not to remain "intact" (as in "whole", "un"circumcised impiles something yet to be done).

My dad was not circumcised, so he saw no reason to pay for one for me, so he refused to sign a release allowing it so I still have it even now. My brother developed an on-going infection under the foreskin, so a circumcision was required, but was done by a urologist, who performed an "excellent" one (as far as circumcisions go, no more skin was removed than was absolutely necessary to prevent re-occurrence of the infection).

Many HMO's now view circumcision as an elective surgery, unless, it is performed strictly for certifiable medical reasons, so the rate of circumcision is dropping in this country. In other countries, Canada, the UK, France, Germany, Sweden, etc... HMO's or National Health Plans refuse to pay for neo-natal circumcisions. Too many neo-natal circumcision results in numerous issues later in life. (How can a doctor, not trained to do circumcisions, do one well on a penis that is extremely tiny.) The most common error is to remove too much skin and at least some, if not all, of the mucus membrane. In most cases, the foreskin and glans are fused until around 10 years of age or so, when they separate from each other. Tearing the two apart at birth to perform a neo-natal circumcision can cause numerous issues.

This not the forum for an an-going discussion of circumcision, other forums are more appropriate, such as NoCirc (http://nocirc.org/).

Both circumcision and delaying puberty are decisions made by parents. Not making a decision is, in fact, making a decision.

sailorboy (imported) wrote: Tue Jun 10, 2008 9:04 am On a more personal note, puberty was very hard on me. My genitals did not start growing until I was almost fourteen years old. That's when I learned about the joy of masturbation. I was about 21-22 when I got hair on my chest and a "treasure trail" running down to my dick and balls.

Some guys never get get chest hair, even a "treasure trail," including actors William McNamara and Scott Wolf. Body hair is one of those things that vary so great due to genetics.

sailorboy (imported) wrote: Tue Jun 10, 2008 9:04 am The worst part of puberty is that my voice, a boy soprano, did not change until I was almost SEVENTEEN. A boy showering after P. E. with small balls and a smaller dick who had a boy's voice caused me great embarrassment. It's a wonder that the guys didn't call me "queer"---at least to my face!!!!

I'm surprised that you voice dropped that long after puberty started. And in an earlier post I comment about one of friends that had not hit hid puberty before I left High School (he was a year behind me).

sailorboy (imported) wrote: Tue Jun 10, 2008 9:04 am So, having a delayed puberty might be a good thing for boys. It couldn't be any worse than the way things are NOW!!!!

You're not alone in this opinion.

Thanks for reading this.

Sailorboy

According to THIS (http://www.montereyherald.com/health/ci_9585901) YANKEE CLIPPER has an ally in principle to his claim.

i wish i had been castrated before i went thru puberty. i never felt like i was a real man and i should have been female. but at this point i would be happy to just remain a prepubescent boy all my life. non-sexual but outwardly as a male. to late now.