Some transsexuals are starting to identify as intersexed on the basis (supported by the studies cited above) that they have inconsistent anatomy, and thus a birth defect. This is not just a matter of nomenclature; if we are successful in gaining the label of “intersex” then the surgical reassignment procedures become “surgery to remedy a birth defect”, which not only makes the procedures “medically necessary” (rather than the current status of “elective surgery”) but may actually qualify us for special legal status which would further increase access to care.
Of course, there are many elements in society who oppose this happening, the biggest being the sexual conservatives and fiscal conservatives (who have a lot of overlap), and the radical feminists (who have very little overlap with the preceding). However, the double right-left whammy presented by that strange alliance does pose a serious problem. And then you have all penis-god worshippers who cringe at the idea of someone who wants to have her penis slit in half, eviscerated, and turned inside out, and the “think of the children” NIMBY whiners who are fine with there being transsexuals around as long as they stay on Jerry Springer and out of the local schools.
This debate is far more about politics than it is about science.
Thank you dear, though I’ve always found DocCathode a dependable source of trans information. I got this link to the hypothalamus research from him, I think.
Well, I don’t necessarily think what the parents have done is troubling. I don’t think it’s fair for them to publicize what their child is going through, but I don’t necessarily think it’s wrong to draw the conclusions they’ve drawn.
Doesn’t mean the encyclopedia is more or less inaccurate than the average journal article.
I’m not upselling anything. In fact, I linked to another cite coming to the same conclusion Wiki did. I do not think it’s as innaccurate as others do, and am not willing to dismiss anything written on the site as specious.
Nobody put anything in front of me, I linked to the study in my first post. The are numerous problems with the study, not to mention the fact that the authors themselves don’t claim to conclusively prove what has been stated in this thread. I think they would probably argue that while their studies are solid and demonstrate a lot of correlation, they do not definitively prove anything (which I’d agree with).
To be fair, there’s a great deal of difference between diabetes, a condition that may be diagnosed without the involvement of the child (beyond blood tests), and transsexualism, which does require the psychiatrist to talk to the child. The latter is potentially more problematic than the former in that a) it relies on the opinion of the professional (well-founded in research and other’s work it may be) and b) the child cannot “fake” signs of diabetes, whereas it’s possible the child is “faking” her transsexualism (or going through a phase, etc).
Generally psychiatry gets short shrift compared to medical matters, but in this case it’s not accurate to compare their trustworthiness (in the sense of accuracy, not lying) and say they’re similar.
You haven’t demonstrated that a diagnosis of transsexuality is less reliable than one of diabetes. You’ve just stated it. Can you show me figures on how often people are diagnosed with GID and then later reveal that they were “faking” or decide the diagnosis was incorrect? I’m sure the number is greater than zero, but I’m also sure it’s less than significant. If this is a problem worth mentioning, surely someone will have noticed.
Is misdiagnosis of GID being considered seriously by the scientific community as a problem, or is it just something you’ve decided for yourself? Either way, some sources to justify the positon would be nice.
That’s not what he’s saying. He’s not saying diagnosing GID is less reliable than diabetes, he’s saying it’s harder. And I don’t think you can reasonably argue that he’s wrong, especially when it comes to a child this young.
Or imagine if her parents decided to raise her as a boy, and she had to live with that for the rest of her life.
The problem with “do nothing until she’s older” thing is that it’s not a neutral choice. It’s not a default. It is a very active choice with absolutely just as many long term implications as doing things the other way. There is no safe easy answer. There is only one that is right, and one that is horribly wrong. These decisions must be made and there is some risk to any choice.
Evidence shows that living as the wrong gender is very harmful. Transgendered people have some of the highest suicide rates around- I’ve read up to 50% for people who cannot live as their prefered gender. Setting things right is not a little life enhancment. It is a very, very, very big deal that allows people to live normal lives instead of lives of pain and self-loathing. Living 18 years as the wrong gender isn’t an inconvience, it’s a potentially deadly and always deeply life-affecting problem.
And then there is a fact that transitioning early makes things a helluva lot easier. Surgery at 18 has much better results than surgery at 25, leading to a happier and safer life. Going in to a new school as the gender you intend to stay is a lot easier than explaining everything to everyone as a teen or adult. At this stage, she has the chance to live a life as normal as anyone born with a birth defect. If all this is done later, she will have a dirty secret and a bizarre past that everyone will know.
This is a scientific frontier. And like all things psychological, we don’t have many concretes to work with. We will probably make some mistakes on this journey, but hopefully we will continue to make discoveries. Science and medicine exists to improve human lives, not to fit us in to a mold of “normal”. And if we can find a way to help transgendered people live better lives, I’m all for it. The costs of not taking these risks is just too great.
Well, I don’t know that there are studies about the reliability of diagnosis of GID in preschoolers. But assuming that it is a neurologically based phenomenon, it seems to me that diagnosis would likely be unreliable in this age group . Diagnosis of other neurobiological conditions in this age group is often problematic unless there is some gross physical problem (which there almost never is). And age of diagnosis is being pushed back, for good and practical reasons overall. However, as that happens, the chance of misdiagnosis seems to me to increase.
In general, though, I am not sure it is regarded so much as a problem as it is a calculated risk – for conditions where there is hope of improving a person’s life if therapy can be begun early enough while the brain is still more plastic than not, doing something is probably better than doing nothing, even if doing nothing would have ended up with the same result in the end. Because there is no way at this time to know that for certain.
Oh, dear, I hate it when I miss something glaringly obvious, but…so what? It seems to me that even if you could sort of stick a hypothetical external sensor on with a bit of sticky tape and it lit up pink or blue for girl brain or boy brain, diagnosis of a child who is not yet in kindie would at least some of the time light up yellow for “kid brain not yet otherwise specified”.
Or not?
I freely admit that I could be missing it, but since the simple test to diagnose hemispheric dominance (to wit, handedness) turns out to be not all that straightforward it seems to me that gender is unlikely to be all that clear cut either, at least in the individuals where it, um, isn’t.
Humans display sexual dimophism in height. Women tend to be shorter than men. Girls tend to be shorter than boys. We are pretty good at measuring height, and the subjects can even remain alive while we measure it. Still, diagnosing the sex of anyone based on height remains problematic. I think most characteristics we would base LED tests on would face similar issues.
Why not? That’s what you and others keep saying, but I still don’t see support for that. Why is it so obviously questionable? Most trans people report that they knew they were trans from this young, and most never “change their minds” or decide it was “just a phase”. And what is this spectre of terrible harm to the child everyone keeps waving about? I would need to be convinced that the psychological danger from transitioning was greater than not transitioning, for the kid. But most people arguing against this here are doing so not from actual information, but vague impressions and personal feelings turned into “common sense”.
I’m not trying to be obtuse. I do understand that diagnosis of psychiatric issues can be trickier. But you can’t just announce that fact and then raise your eyebrows in a significant manner as if that clearly solves the issue. So what? Is there any evidence that in THIS case, the diagnosis might be wrong?
I’m not saying GID is less certain than diabetes, i’m saying it’s much harder to diagnose. It relies on the opinion of the psychiatrist; and opinions of one person can be wildly different from another, even if they have access to the same research. So some trans people may not be diagnosed, and some non-trans people might be diagnosed. That problem isn’t present with diabetes, since a diagnosis of that is based a set of distinct symptoms that do not require the opinion of the doctor in their diagnosis.
The second problem is that non-trans kids can show all the signs of GID without being a transsexual. They have large imaginations, and they’re often not aware of how serious the situation actually is. They could think it a game, or are just going through a phase. This also causes some difficulties with diagnosis; not only from non-trans kids being incorrectly diagnosed, but it’s possible an overcompensation for this on the part of the psychiatrist might result in some trans people not being diagnosed. This is not the same with diabetes; a person cannot fake low/high blood sugar levels, or medical tests.
Do you not agree that GID in children is a lot harder to diagnose than diabetes in children? It’s much more problematic.
And what is this spectre of terrible harm to the child everyone keeps waving about? I would need to be convinced that the psychological danger from transitioning was greater than not transitioning, for the kid. But most people arguing against this here are doing so not from actual information, but vague impressions and personal feelings turned into “common sense”.
[/QUOTE]
Let’s say for a moment that I accept all this without question. What conclusion do you draw from it all, in regards to this case? Do you have any evidence that this is what’s happening here? Do you think that because psychiatric conditions can’t be tested for in a beaker, we should…what? Not diagnose them? Be very very careful? Have you seen anything that shows this case to be an example of insufficient care being taken?
I read the whole article and I didn’t see any part that said a formal diagnosis has yet been made for this child. The article also said that most boys diagnosed as GID as children do not continue to identify as women as adults but as gay males. GID does not automatically mean that a child is transgendered. If, as one psychiatrist quoted in the article states, “the vast majority of children fall out of it” [GID], then it’s probably not a good idea for the parents to decide what this kid is or is not just yet.
Y’don’t think there might be just the teeniest bit of self-selection going on there? :dubious:
Perhaps (I have no data) there is a large pool of small children who do go through just such a phase, and to whom the psychological danger of transitioning is greater than not transitioning?
I’ve read other things, as have others here, that very much contradict the statement that “the vast majority of children” fall out of a GID diagnosis, and I didn’t catch the thing in there about GID girls becoming gay males, so I obviously need to read the article again, but that’s another thing absolutely not supported by anything else I’ve ever read. If I’m shown studies I’ll eat my words, of course, happily, not even with ketchup.
Out of curiosity, what do you people think the magic number is when a person should be allowed to be trans?