Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,581 Year: 2,838/9,624 Month: 683/1,588 Week: 89/229 Day: 61/28 Hour: 0/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Landmark gay marriage trial starts today in California
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 274 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 196 of 759 (638878)
10-26-2011 4:49 PM
Reply to: Message 189 by New Cat's Eye
10-26-2011 3:19 PM


Re: Lesbian couple treating son's hormones
What people are calling child abuse is: giving their child hormone blockers that delay the onset of puberty.
Ah, well, if you meant that 11 years old was too young to delay the onset of puberty, I would point out that if they waited till he was 18 this would kind of defeat the object.
But how can one be too young for this treatment? One can only be too old for it. If someone gave, say, a 5 year old, hormones to prevent him from reaching puberty, then how could one object? --- it would make no difference. A 10 year old? No problem, 10 is in fact too young to reach puberty. A 15 year old? Now you're entering into ethically dubious territory. Because that is too old not to reach puberty. But no-one can be too young not to reach puberty. That makes no sense whatsoever.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 189 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-26-2011 3:19 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4024
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 8.8


Message 197 of 759 (638881)
10-26-2011 5:07 PM
Reply to: Message 182 by New Cat's Eye
10-26-2011 1:34 PM


Re: Lesbian couple treating son's hormones
Some are calling this child abuse, some are insinuating its a step in the right direction. I'm not sure how I feel about it yet, but it doesn't seem right.... 11 years old is pretty young.
1) This has nothing to do with gay marriage.
2) You clearly know absolutely jack and shit about transgenderism and what it or its treatment entail.
3) Even though you claim the sexual orientation of the parents is irrelevant, you specifically mention that it's extra fishy because the parents are lesbians, and you posted it in the "last gay thread," so obviously you do think the sexual orientation of the parents is relevant.
Here's a clue, CS:
Transgender individuals don;t choose to be transgender. They can choose the medical procedure to correct their defect by changing their gender, and that is all.
Transgender individuals suffer from having an opposite gender identity from their physical sex. The disorder is not a mental disorder, it cannot be treated with therapy. The only known working treatment is to reassign genders.
Transgender individuals typically know from childhood that they have the wrong body parts. There are cases of young boys trying to cut off their penises exclaiming that they are girls. Note - that they are girls, not that they want to be girls.
Gender reassignment is much easier when you begin before puberty, when secondary sexual characteristics start to show up.
Hormones taken to delay puberty do exactly that: they delay the onset of puberty. If the hormones are stopped, the person will experience natural puberty shortly thereafter with no ill effects other than going through the process a bit later. This allows the decision to change gender to be made at a slow, deliberate pace. The individual can make the decision without worrying about whether they'll grow breasts or facial hair before they're certain. They typically go through significant psychological counseling during this period.
It's not "too young." It's exactly the age to delay the onset of otherwise-immanent puberty so that the person can have the easiest transition possible, with no risk if they decline to fully transition.
Your "gut reaction" doesn't know any facts, CS.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 182 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-26-2011 1:34 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17815
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 198 of 759 (638888)
10-26-2011 5:59 PM
Reply to: Message 193 by New Cat's Eye
10-26-2011 3:39 PM


Re: Lesbian couple treating son's hormones
quote:
Because of the permanency. Its different than, say, my parents raising me to be Catholic because I could easily just leave it.
But it isn't permanent, is it ? It's just delaying the onset of puberty.
Now, I have my doubts about whether it is really appropriate but there's no doubt that it is motivated by concern for their child and that it's a whole lot better than rushing through gender assignment surgery.
Or, for instance, following a child's wish to go for quack cancer treatment instead of conventional therapies which have a high chance of working (Abraham Cherrix).
Or chemically castrating autistic children as a "treatment" for their condition. (The Geiers offer Lupron for this purpose)
Or denying children effective medical treatment because of a religious belief. (e.g. Jehovah's Witnesses ban on blood transfusions).
Add the concerns about your focus on the parent's sexuality and it really seems that the main point of your post is attacking them because they happen to be lesbians.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 193 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-26-2011 3:39 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 199 by NoNukes, posted 10-26-2011 7:19 PM PaulK has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 199 of 759 (638895)
10-26-2011 7:19 PM
Reply to: Message 198 by PaulK
10-26-2011 5:59 PM


Re: Lesbian couple treating son's hormones
I'll admit to having some initial concerns, some of which were because of the couple being lesbians. It isn't all that unusual for children to express some early confusion regarding their gender, and to have that confusion resolved with help in part from a male role model in the house.
But upon reading the article, it appears to me that the family has done their homework, and I'm not sure what else they could have done to make sure that they are not meddling in something that the couple should be advised to leave alone. I've concluded that this is none of my business.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 198 by PaulK, posted 10-26-2011 5:59 PM PaulK has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 200 by hooah212002, posted 10-26-2011 7:42 PM NoNukes has replied
 Message 202 by Rrhain, posted 10-27-2011 4:44 AM NoNukes has replied

  
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 792 days)
Posts: 3193
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 200 of 759 (638900)
10-26-2011 7:42 PM
Reply to: Message 199 by NoNukes
10-26-2011 7:19 PM


Re: Lesbian couple treating son's hormones
I'll admit to having some initial concerns, some of which were because of the couple being lesbians. It isn't all that unusual for children to express some early confusion regarding their gender, and to have that confusion resolved with help in part from a male role model in the house.
What if it was a single mother who lived at home with her mother (the childs grandmother) and the grandfather has since deceased. Would you have the same initial concern? I guess I cannot see what rational reason there is that sexual orientation comes into play with reasonable people.

"Why don't you call upon your God to strike me? Oh, I forgot it's because he's fake like Thor, so bite me" -Greydon Square

This message is a reply to:
 Message 199 by NoNukes, posted 10-26-2011 7:19 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 201 by NoNukes, posted 10-26-2011 9:38 PM hooah212002 has seen this message but not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 201 of 759 (638914)
10-26-2011 9:38 PM
Reply to: Message 200 by hooah212002
10-26-2011 7:42 PM


Re: Lesbian couple treating son's hormones
What if it was a single mother who lived at home with her mother (the childs grandmother) and the grandfather has since deceased. Would you have the same initial concern?
I would have exactly the same concern with a single mother raising a son if I were told that the child had gender identity issues and that the parent wanted to treat the child with pharmaceuticals because of them.
My concern with the lesbian couple is not the couple's sexual orientation, but that the couples orientation may have led to a situation where there probably aren't any male role models in the house.
Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 200 by hooah212002, posted 10-26-2011 7:42 PM hooah212002 has seen this message but not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 202 of 759 (638936)
10-27-2011 4:44 AM
Reply to: Message 199 by NoNukes
10-26-2011 7:19 PM


NoNukes writes:
quote:
It isn't all that unusual for children to express some early confusion regarding their gender, and to have that confusion resolved with help in part from a male role model in the house.
Actually, it is quite unusual. Children don't have gender identity issues as a rule because there are no end of role models for them to see. This nonsensical idea CS raised that a child at three "doesn't know" is simply not borne out by any studies of actual children. On the contrary, children at that age know very well about the difference between boys and girls and are very adamant about it.
The kid certainly wasn't "influenced" by his parents and if the kid's been pointing this out for eight years, it is hardly "just a phase."
And if we have to point out the sexual orientation of the parents, then thank heaven this kid's being raised by gay parents. As we have found out, kids do better when the parents are gay than when the parents are straight. It's much more likely this kid will have supportive parents who will not judge than if the parents were not gay.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 199 by NoNukes, posted 10-26-2011 7:19 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 203 by NoNukes, posted 10-27-2011 5:38 AM Rrhain has replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 203 of 759 (638942)
10-27-2011 5:38 AM
Reply to: Message 202 by Rrhain
10-27-2011 4:44 AM


Actually, it is quite unusual. Children don't have gender identity issues as a rule because there are no end of role models for them to see. This nonsensical idea CS raised that a child at three "doesn't know" is simply not borne out by any studies of actual children.
Okay, I can buy that. I was already convinced that I was wrong about the parents being at fault.
Still, I've personally encountered a few instances of young boys in homes without dads insisting that they were are wanted to be girls. Perhaps that my impression was just anecdotal.
As we have found out, kids do better when the parents are gay than when the parents are straight.
Really? Where is this revealed?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 202 by Rrhain, posted 10-27-2011 4:44 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 204 by Rahvin, posted 10-27-2011 10:51 AM NoNukes has seen this message but not replied
 Message 205 by Rrhain, posted 11-02-2011 5:43 AM NoNukes has seen this message but not replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4024
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 8.8


Message 204 of 759 (638980)
10-27-2011 10:51 AM
Reply to: Message 203 by NoNukes
10-27-2011 5:38 AM


Still, I've personally encountered a few instances of young boys in homes without dads insisting that they were are wanted to be girls.
There is an extremely large difference between a boy who wants to be a girl and a biological male identifying as female.
Transgendered people don't want to become something.
Transgendered people already are the correct gender in their minds. Only their outward sex is wrong.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 203 by NoNukes, posted 10-27-2011 5:38 AM NoNukes has seen this message but not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


(4)
Message 205 of 759 (639578)
11-02-2011 5:43 AM
Reply to: Message 203 by NoNukes
10-27-2011 5:38 AM


NoNukes responds to me:
quote:
quote:
As we have found out, kids do better when the parents are gay than when the parents are straight.
Really? Where is this revealed?
It goes all the way back to Baher v. Miike, the Hawaii same-sex marriage case from the 90s. In trying to justify discrimination against gay people, the State argued that marriage should be disallowed to gay people because it would harm the children raised in such households. However, the State's own witnesses pointed out that no, children raised in households headed by gay parents were no worse off and on some measures better off than those raised by straight parents.
And a recent University of California study found:
...the 17-year-old daughters and sons of lesbian mothers were rated significantly higher in social, school/academic, and total competence and significantly lower in social problems, rule-breaking, aggressive, and externalizing problem behavior than their age-matched counterparts in Achenbach's normative sample of American youth.
The general consensus seems to be that children raised by gay parents tend to be more accepting of diversity than those raised by straight parents. This, on its face, isn't too surprising.
But, of course, that's not really the concern, is it? No, the concern is that if a child is raised by gay parents, then the kid is likely to "become" gay, as if you could force anybody to be gay, as if being gay were some sort of disease. Everybody seems to ignore the fact that the overwhelming majority of gay people were raised by straight parents. The sexual orientation of the parents is not communicable to the children.
There was really no need to mention the sexual orientation of the parents of this child. It is truly irrelevant.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 203 by NoNukes, posted 10-27-2011 5:38 AM NoNukes has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 206 by crashfrog, posted 11-02-2011 10:46 AM Rrhain has replied
 Message 208 by Taz, posted 11-03-2011 8:14 AM Rrhain has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1457 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 206 of 759 (639607)
11-02-2011 10:46 AM
Reply to: Message 205 by Rrhain
11-02-2011 5:43 AM


I wish I knew the magic words to summon you, Rrhain. You don't contribute enough around here. I'm sure you feel like it's the same debates year after year but you're sorely missed. Nobody cuts 'em off at the knees like you do.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 205 by Rrhain, posted 11-02-2011 5:43 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 207 by Rrhain, posted 11-03-2011 3:05 AM crashfrog has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 207 of 759 (639701)
11-03-2011 3:05 AM
Reply to: Message 206 by crashfrog
11-02-2011 10:46 AM


Thanks, crash, and I enjoy our discussions, too, even the heated ones. But between work and me having fallen in love...though long distance and thus I'm often out of town every other weekend...I tend to have "better" things to do with my time.
But I've noticed of late that the convos tend to be on topics I'm not all that versed on such as geology so I am content to sit back and watch. I'm a bit relieved that the never-ending agnosticism thread seems to have died.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 206 by crashfrog, posted 11-02-2011 10:46 AM crashfrog has not replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3281 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 208 of 759 (639716)
11-03-2011 8:14 AM
Reply to: Message 205 by Rrhain
11-02-2011 5:43 AM


Rrhain writes:
as if you could force anybody to be gay, as if being gay were some sort of disease.
To be fair, I think the liberal commie side is just as annoying as the conservatives on this front by being too politically correct.
I was attending a debate at a nearby university. The discussion was about general statements and stereotypes. At one point, a question was posed what would make a general statement ok to make. Someone said "asian people tend to eat rice".
Of course this got all the liberal commies all riled up. They called it racist and that you shouldn't make a statement like that.
Let me name a few reasons why liberals are starting to bother the hell out of me with their political correctness.
(1) By hushing everyone who makes a statement like that, it suggests there's something wrong with the act of eating rice. It's like not mentioning directly that someone is retarded because we perceive that there's something wrong with a person who was born mentally retarded.
(2) It is a fact that east asian people really do tend to eat rice just like we tend to eat our hamburgers and hotdogs. There's nothing wrong with any of these acts.
(3) To collectively hushing someone for making such an opinion is just wrong. This political correctness is getting ridiculous.
The point I'm trying to make is even if children raised by gay couples tend to become gay, it would still not be reason to stop gay people from raising children. There's nothing wrong with being gay. In fact, I would argue that if we ever find a way to change a person's sexual orientation (chemically or genetically or whatever), we should change half our population from straight to gay. We already got enough people as is. We don't need red necks to keep breeding like that. Anyone here seen that tv show with that christian family with 18 kids?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 205 by Rrhain, posted 11-02-2011 5:43 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 209 by Rrhain, posted 11-04-2011 12:28 AM Taz has replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


(1)
Message 209 of 759 (639794)
11-04-2011 12:28 AM
Reply to: Message 208 by Taz
11-03-2011 8:14 AM


Taz responds to me:
quote:
Of course this got all the liberal commies all riled up. They called it racist and that you shouldn't make a statement like that.
And most likely, they're right. Why? Because nobody says something like, "Asian people tend to eat rice," in the context of nutritional anthropology.
Besides, given how pervasive rice-eating is, it is puzzling why one would make the point of singling out Asian people. Everybody tends to eat rice. It's one of the main staples of the human diet, third after corn (which technically isn't as impressive since a lot of corn isn't consumed by humans) and wheat. Those "Rice Krispies" everybody ate as kids? They're made of rice. The risotto you have at dinner? Rice. Rice-a-Roni may be a San Francisco treat that is made with pasta, but it's also made with rice. Somebody who would point out that Asians tend to eat rice would seemingly be ignoring all the rice non-Asians eat.
It's funny you mentioned that because NPR had a story regarding how the rice market panicked recently: India noticed that wheat prices were going up and thus, to ensure it had enough food to feed its people, it enacted protectionist practices with regard to its rice crop, preventing any from being exported. That set off all the other countries and despite the fact that there was plenty of rice, the price of rice sky-rocketed because nobody was willing to sell any to anybody else. It took the US to ask Japan to release it's trade-agreement rice (the US, in an attempt to normalize trade levels with Japan, sells rice to Japan...who doesn't want it since they have plenty of their own. It just sits there and can't be sold outside of Japan.) No rice was actually sold out of this store, but the fact that it might be was sufficient to break the rice bubble.
quote:
By hushing everyone who makes a statement like that, it suggests there's something wrong with the act of eating rice.
Yes and no. It suggests that they don't just eat rice but that they eat rice beyond what is considered "normal" as if a Western diet is the standard to which all others must aspire.
quote:
It is a fact that east asian people really do tend to eat rice just like we tend to eat our hamburgers and hotdogs.
Factually true, but misleading. As mentioned above, Asian people do eat rice, but so does everybody else. Why would anybody think to make a point of this? What could possibly be the purpose of singling out a group of people for engaging in an activity that everybody does just as much?
Let's not play dumb.
quote:
To collectively hushing someone for making such an opinion is just wrong. This political correctness is getting ridiculous.
Incorrect. Your right to your opinion does not come with a right to an audience nor does it make it a valid opinion. Your freedom of speech does not come with freedom of consequences and just as you had the right to express your opinion, other people have the right to express theirs and call you on your stupidity.
This is typical conservative bullshit that feigns offense at getting pushback as if refusing to accept intolerance were some sort of intolerance.
quote:
The point I'm trying to make is even if children raised by gay couples tend to become gay, it would still not be reason to stop gay people from raising children.
Indeed. But the fact of the matter is that we still live in a world where being gay is considered a bad thing. They claim that if we accept the idea that there are people who aren't straight, then the entire species will go extinct ("If everybody were gay....") It's all fine and dandy for you and me to understand that the premise is nonsensical, but we're dealing with a system that starts with that premise and we are forced to tackle it on their terms.
The bigots hold the power. They will not give it up easily.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 208 by Taz, posted 11-03-2011 8:14 AM Taz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 210 by Taz, posted 11-04-2011 1:02 AM Rrhain has replied
 Message 211 by Minnemooseus, posted 11-04-2011 1:14 AM Rrhain has replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3281 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 210 of 759 (639797)
11-04-2011 1:02 AM
Reply to: Message 209 by Rrhain
11-04-2011 12:28 AM


Rrhain writes:
Everybody tends to eat rice
Are you really going to argue that everybody eats rice just as often as asian people?
It's funny you mentioned that because NPR had a story regarding how the rice market panicked recently
I know, I listened to the same program.
Yes and no. It suggests that they don't just eat rice but that they eat rice beyond what is considered "normal" as if a Western diet is the standard to which all others must aspire.
Again, are you seriously going to argue that western people eat rice just as often as east asian people?
How many times a day do you eat rice?
The bigots hold the power. They will not give it up easily.
So... let me get this straight. Since the bigots hold the power, we should cave into their demand and recognize that there is something wrong with being gay?
This is exactly the kind of counter productive stance in the liberal camp that I've been talking about for years. There's nothing wrong with the act of eating rice in one's daily diet. There's absolutely nothing wrong with being gay even if it was brought upon by having 2 gay parents.
Anymore political correctness you'd like to preach?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 209 by Rrhain, posted 11-04-2011 12:28 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 213 by Rrhain, posted 11-04-2011 2:00 AM Taz has not replied
 Message 214 by Theodoric, posted 11-04-2011 9:12 AM Taz has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024