Support NeoGAF

[demosthenes]

Most of the bans were deserved. The number of people doing a hit and run calling the parents sick monsters who needed to be arrested/killed and acted like they were forcing this on the kid was disgusting.

So hopefully they learned not to enter topics with sensationalist headlines and a huge ass OP and disregard the idea of actually reading the OP.

 

[LQX]

Maybe some topics should be off limits? I never know what to really say in these topics and race threads weather agreeing, disagreeing or just wanting to give a personal opinion. So many bannings seem to come from them.

 

[YoungHav]

The banning here was absolutely spectacular. Made my morning funny.

 

[Dabanton]

The people banned should have known better. I see a lot of long time members among them.

 

[Complex Shadow]

nice to see the tittle got corrected.

 

[FoneBone]

The original title doesn't seem so bad, it's implying that the child is deciding on a gender, not the parents.

What am I missing? The fact that the parents are lesbian isn't relevant but still included in the title which may or not imply a connotation of believing in some agenda? Or some such?

I may be missing something obvious, I apologize.

Well, that's one way to look at it, but a lot of people seem to have been getting the implication that the parents were "experimenting" with the kid because of either misandry or a desire to prove a philosophical point.

 

[water_wendi]

One reason for this not getting my support. The child seems to have something up with them mentally (according to the doctors).

From a non-Fox News article

The hormone blockers are also reversible, because once a child stops taking the drugs, the natural puberty begins, said Dr. Stephen Rosenthal, pediatric endocrinologist at UC San Francisco.

edit2: And just in case some people would think this doctor is some nobody with bad credentials like HeadlessRoman was accusing of the parents doctors here is what i found about Dr. Stephen Rosenthal from UC San Francisco that gave that quote about puberty resuming. Dr. Stephen M. Rosenthal is a board certified pediatrician and board certified pediatric endocrinologist that went to Columbia medical school.


edit:

Maybe some topics should be off limits? I never know what to really say in these topics and race threads weather agreeing, disagreeing or just wanting to give a personal opinion. So many bannings seem to come from them.

If i were to guess i would say that all but three of these bans were from not reading the OP (and even then those three people did not read the OP anyway).

 

[FoneBone]

From a non-Fox News article



edit:

If i were to guess i would say that all but three of these bans were from not reading the OP (and even then those three people did not read the OP anyway).

Most of them were just from not reading the OP, but there were a lot more than three that went further.

 

[JGS]

Maybe some topics should be off limits? I never know what to really say in these topics and race threads weather agreeing, disagreeing or just wanting to give a personal opinion. So many bannings seem to come from them.

I would go crazy trying to figure out what I can't say. I assume I'll just get banned one day for sayng something i wasn't supposed to.

From what I can tell, you only get banned for truly offensive things. Most should be able to tell if something is bigoted/offensive or if one is just accused of bigotry/offensiveness just because it's disagreement.

The mods seem to know the difference at least.

 

[mollipen]

That's an 11 year old being asked this. Its not a gender issue so much as a maturity issue I'm having here.

It's been said many times by people who have been in this very situation, however, that they knew at that age. Or they knew what their feelings were, but just didn't yet have the understanding of what they meant.

As I said in a previous post in this thread, I know we like to think that everything that kids do is because of the crazy emotions and feelings that come with being a child/teenager, but that isn't always the case. For example, if this was an 11 year old boy saying "I'm gay", would we accept that, or would we write it off and expect him to "grow out of it"? Or what about a child that young saying that they're depressed?

Obviously you aren't going to have a child come to you, say "I want to be a girl, not a boy", and then be like, "Okay, cool, let's give you hormones!" You make a lot of effort to make sure that they're serious, and that it's a real issue going on inside of them. Once you understand that it is, though, you treat them with respect in that matter, and not like they could just change their mind back at any moment. Sure, some kids might enjoy role-player as the other gender just for fun - but if it's just that, that fact would come out pretty quick.

The question is if there are examples of children who began their transitioning at a young age, and then regretted it later. That's obviously a good question to ask. At the same time, you also have to clearly understand why they regretted the decision. Like, you might have somebody that comes out as gay, lives as that for a number of years, and then decides to go back to being straight. Was it really because they made a "mistake", or was it because of social or other pressures that forced them to decide consciously or subconsciously that it'd just be easier to live life that way?

Maybe some topics should be off limits? I never know what to really say in these topics and race threads weather agreeing, disagreeing or just wanting to give a personal opinion. So many bannings seem to come from them.

The worst thing to do for the transgender issue would be to say that it's off limits for discussing. If you never know what to say, that's fine! I don't know of anybody who's ever been banned for saying they don't understand it, or maybe don't agree with it, or things like that. It's when people revel in ignorance, insults, or other such things that troubles begin.

I think it's simple - if you're dealing with a topic or people you don't fully understand, still treat them with respect. If you indeed don't understand everything about the subject, or disagree with some points, just do so in a way that doesn't demean the other side, or make it seem like you think they're superior. That should be the way conversation happens for everything, from politics, to religion, to questions of sexuality/gender.

 

[Plywood]

nice to see the tittle got corrected.

It only took 40+ bans.

 

[Van Owen]

Isn't HRT pretty hazardous to your health? Because if it is that does seem abusive.

 

[DR3AM]

thanks for the title change.

 

[Zaptruder]

The way I see it, there are two courses of action:
-Put him on hormone therapy to give him time to decide, and hope side effects are minimal.
-Let him go through puberty and see what happens.
Maybe puberty screws with his gender identity, making life difficult. But maybe it helps him realize that he's male, and he wants to stay male.
Maybe hormone therapy gives him the time to think over things more and come to terms with himself. Maybe it just extends the period of confusion, or has effects on his physiology.

On the balance, I tend towards the option that involves the least interference. Neither option is "right", but I do think I disagree with this course of action.

Again, been informed is an important part of making the right moral decisions.

While I'll admit that I'm personally not as informed as I could be on the issue (reading modus' post did make me raise an eyebrow), if the parents of this child are surrounded by medical professionals from multiple fields recommending this course of action, and they are indeed aware of the risks and the benefits of the medication...

Then I'd say that they're probably making the most optimized decision. Of course, they should continue researching into it if they have any uncertainties - but it would seem from the available information that they have done sufficient due dilligence in this case.

Taking the drugs will not always be the most optimal decision, just as not taking the drugs will not always be the most optimal decision - but on the weight of available information from the relevant authorities of information... they're doing right by their child.

 

[Dreams-Visions]

what happened in here...

I feel like I survived a nuclear blast.

edit: and yea, the title change was most appropriate.

 

[Van Owen]

People didn't get banned for opposing this, strictly speaking, but saying that it was child abuse or that the parents should be jailed, killed, etc.

Well, a doctor from Johns Hopkins thinks its abuse too...

 

[Igo]

Before you jump too hard on him, I'm guessing he doesn't understand that there is a difference between SEX and GENDER.

Maybe he doesn't, but isn't he right? Either you're born into a gender or it develops after birth. In this case, this child would always identified as a female regardless of upbringing. I was positive that this was the current politically correct position on the matter.

 

[water_wendi]

Isn't HRT pretty hazardous to your health? Because if it is that does seem abusive.

Its mostly dangerous due to self-medication. Without doctor supervision to monitor blood levels it can be very dangerous. The risk of blood clots also increases with age and if you are a smoker.

 

[Kusagari]

Well, a doctor from Johns Hopkins thinks its abuse too...

Are you proposing the mods ban the doctor from GAF?

 

[water_wendi]

Well, a doctor from Johns Hopkins thinks its abuse too...

Botolf made this post earlier in the thread.

He likely doesn't, but I did find this when I went about digging: http://www.firstthings.com/article/2009/02/surgical-sex--35

It's a bit of a read. For my part, I found his summary thoroughly unconvincing. He describes in detail outward appearances and simple interests of SRS applicants as being significant [1], but later, when he claims that SRS isn't therapeutic, he is inexplicably vague when detailing that assessment [2].

His generalizations about transgendered people are also such that they're suspect on their face. He maintains that the SRS-seeking transgendered fall into two main categories [3][4]. From the beginning these groupings strike me as hopelessly narrow, such that even my casual research has turned up much more (frequent) variance than the model implies. I have to wonder just how large his sample size of patients was, he makes no mention of how many people were assessed. I'm put off also by the repetition of his insistence that SRS is essentially the enabling of mental illness (and that transgenderism is literally madness), especially when his presented arguments are specific and then vague without rhyme or reason.

The more I pore over this, the more inelegant and partial it becomes. McHugh comes across as a man who had the answer before he even sought the question, he isn't shy about trumpeting his view that transgenderism is a mental illness and that SRS is a destructive and futile practice. The justifications he presents here are almost insulting, he glosses over vital topics like in-depth assessment in lieu of talking up how silly the SRS-applicants look to him. Of course, one could argue that in this setting the man is less inclined to dollop on the facts and figures, but that's really no defense for this being as shallow and as slanted as it is. I'm baffled by his intent here. As a snarky, partisan feel-good story, it's excellent. As a piece of cogent argument or summary, it's an abortion.

-

[1] "Those I met after surgery would tell me that the surgery and hormone treatments that had made them “women” had also made them happy and contented. None of these encounters were persuasive, however. The post-surgical subjects struck me as caricatures of women. They wore high heels, copious makeup, and flamboyant clothing; they spoke about how they found themselves able to give vent to their natural inclinations for peace, domesticity, and gentleness—but their large hands, prominent Adam’s apples, and thick facial features were incongruous (and would become more so as they aged). Women psychiatrists whom I sent to talk with them would intuitively see through the disguise and the exaggerated postures. “Gals know gals,” one said to me, “and that’s a guy."

[2] "He found that most of the patients he tracked down some years after their surgery were contented with what they had done and that only a few regretted it. But in every other respect, they were little changed in their psychological condition. They had much the same problems with relationships, work, and emotions as before. The hope that they would emerge now from their emotional difficulties to flourish psychologically had not been fulfilled."

[3] "Most of the cases fell into one of two quite different groups. One group consisted of conflicted and guilt-ridden homosexual men who saw a sex-change as a way to resolve their conflicts over homosexuality by allowing them to behave sexually as females with men. The other group, mostly older men, consisted of heterosexual (and some bisexual) males who found intense sexual arousal in cross-dressing as females. As they had grown older, they had become eager to add more verisimilitude to their costumes and either sought or had suggested to them a surgical transformation that would include breast implants, penile amputation, and pelvic reconstruction to resemble a woman.

[4] "Further study of similar subjects in the psychiatric services of the Clark Institute in Toronto identified these men by the auto-arousal they experienced in imitating sexually seductive females. Many of them imagined that their displays might be sexually arousing to onlookers, especially to females. This idea, a form of “sex in the head” (D. H. Lawrence), was what provoked their first adventure in dressing up in women’s undergarments and had eventually led them toward the surgical option. Because most of them found women to be the objects of their interest they identified themselves to the psychiatrists as lesbians. The name eventually coined in Toronto to describe this form of sexual misdirection was “autogynephilia.” Once again I concluded that to provide a surgical alteration to the body of these unfortunate people was to collaborate with a mental disorder rather than to treat it."​

 

[JGS]

Well, a doctor from Johns Hopkins thinks its abuse too...

It is abuse if it's forced in order for the parents to deal with it rather than being parents. This doesn't seem to be the case in this story.

However, I got the impression that the argument is an 11 year old can't have an informed choice on this with influence from the parents. This would be abusive from that angle since a good parent wouldn't give hormone treatments.

 

[Sickboy007]

Well, a doctor from Johns Hopkins thinks its abuse too...

This John Hopkins professor is a transphobic, a thing that the vast majority of posters couldn't possibly know. All in all, this thing was badly mismanaged.

 

[Van Owen]

Are you proposing the mods ban the doctor from GAF?

No, I'm suggesting that maybe the mods should reevaluate how educated they are on the matter and maybe not ban someone for having the same opinion as someone whose profession is medicine.

 

[water_wendi]

No, I'm suggesting that maybe the mods should reevaluate how educated they are on the matter and maybe not ban someone for having the same opinion as someone whose profession is medicine.

Firstly, are you talking about a specific poster? Second, just because you are in the medical profession does not mean you are incapable of bigotry.

 

[Van Owen]

Firstly, are you talking about a specific poster? Second, just because you are in the medical profession does not mean you are incapable of bigotry.

1. No
2. Is it possible to have a differing opinion on his matter and not be considered a bigot?

 

[TheMan]

why was the OP banned?

 

[Orayn]

why was the OP banned?

Bullshit sensationalist title, made some rather rude comments in the first few pages.

No, I'm suggesting that maybe the mods should reevaluate how educated they are on the matter and maybe not ban someone for having the same opinion as someone whose profession is medicine.

Been over this. The guy quoted in the OP is a practically a crank whose views are widely, widely disputed. It's no more valid than not banning for racism because James D. Watson of Watson and Crick holds racist views.

 

[rdrr gnr]

Wow at that list a few pages back. Most grey I've seen since I've been here.

I considered posting in this thread when it had the original title, just as I was skimming the first posts, my R3 install finished and I got distracted.

 

[Mumei]

No, I'm suggesting that maybe the mods should reevaluate how educated they are on the matter and maybe not ban someone for having the same opinion as someone whose profession is medicine.

Er.

Suppose for a moment that this were a thread about the ability of gay people to change their sexual orientation, and someone were using the arguments of Dr Joseph Nicolosi. No one who knows the first thing about the topic would take that person's arguments clearly, despite Dr Nicolosi having credentials as a clinical psychologist, because his transparently homophobic beliefs cause him to lie about gay people at every turn.

Similarly Dr Paul McHugh is well-known for his Catholic conservatism in general and his transphobic (and even moreso for his anti-abortion views, though they aren't relevant in the context of this thread) views. The fact that a doctor is a bigot and uses weak arguments to support his case does not suddenly excuse a Gaffer when they are bigoted and use weak arguments to support their case.

 

[Pand]

What a weird thread. I don't really get all the bannings, if people think it's child abuse they think it's child abuse. I've heard more controversial opinions voiced on gaf without the commenters being banned. I'm not saying it's right, but I don't think it's so unimaginable why some people can't understand a thing like this.

As long as there are no major negative side-effects to the drugs prescribed I think this is probably a wise decision. We don't know the full history of what this kid and the parents have been through, but my guess is it isn't pretty.


Also:

Heyer also cited a Dutch study that said 61 percent of individuals who desire a gender change are found to have secondary psychiatric disorders, such as depression or dissociative disorder, which he suffered from.

Those are two extremely easy diagnoses to give to someone who wants to change gender in a society where that kinda thing is frowned upon, to say the least.

 

[Arde5643]

Maybe some topics should be off limits? I never know what to really say in these topics and race threads weather agreeing, disagreeing or just wanting to give a personal opinion. So many bannings seem to come from them.

Nah, a lot of people who should have known better took the bait line and sinker from the OP.

The OP title was definitely designed to cause hit n run bigoted posts, especially from said OP poster - so precaution definitely should have been taken when entering such a sensationalist thread.

 

[water_wendi]

2. Is it possible to have a differing opinion on his matter and not be considered a bigot?

Of course. There are those that have said they think its too early or they wouldnt do it if they were in the parents position and they arent bigots, imo.

 

[themustardman]

This thread is one of the biggest banning graveyards I've seen in OT in a while...

Glad the title was changed though, although possibly a little too late for most of the tl;dr 'ers.

 

[jim-jam bongs]

1. No
2. Is it possible to have a differing opinion on his matter and not be considered a bigot?

There is a right and a wrong way to express your dissenting opinion about an issue, particularly one which has the potential to cause serious offence to another poster or group of posters. The major problem I'm seeing, reading back over the thread, is that a lot of people need to learn that lesson, so hopefully they just did.

 

[Van Owen]

There is a right and a wrong way to express your dissenting opinion about an issue, particularly one which has the potential to cause serious offence to another poster or group of posters. The major problem I'm seeing, reading back over the thread, is that a lot of people need to learn that lesson, so hopefully they just did.

Sorry, but I think giving a child drugs this early that can cause potential health problems when there are no physical ailments can be considered abusive. Maybe others shouldn't be so sensitive to any opinion that isn't inline with their own.

Saying this is abusive is not condemning every transgendered person or a bigoted response.

 

[Fox318]

After reading the CNN article and looking at the bans I'm not surprised there are so many grey people here today. If the parents in question were doing hormone therapy or playing around with their child's gender (regardless of sexual orientation of the parents) then I would say this would be child abuse but that isn't true. The parents in the case of Tammy may be Lesbian but they sought out help and consultation so a decision like this isn't one that was specifically based on the parents wanting their child to be a girl. The parents also have 2 sons which according to the article so it doesn't appear that they are Androphobic.

All identity problems seem tough and tricky for me. When you look in the mirror what you see either isn't what you want or believe is true is such a life altering question. What is it that defines what you are? Is it your body parts? How people look at you? Maybe its what you want to be and not what you are? Does the identity problem stem from a lack of confidence caused by an anxiety or stress disorder?

What should the parent do in these situations? Should they try and make their offspring comfortable in who they are or should they allow their child to pursue what they want even if that means changing themselves in such a drastic manor.

Ultimately I hope that Tammy is happy in the future with what ever decision she (or should she decide he) makes.

 

[mjc]

Thank goodness for the title change, although the banned should have read the OP before launching.

Very interesting story though, I'd be interested in the results years down the road.

 

[Yoritomo]

Poor kid (he's having to deal with very grown up things at such a young age.) It must be really hard to see your kid hurting like that. Here's hoping he can figure everything out and live the best life he's able. I'm sure the moms understand the ramifications and potential viewpoints of bigots but still went with the course of action best able to give their kid a chance for his future happiness.

I see them as very very brave.

 

[jim-jam bongs]

Sorry, but I think giving a child drugs this early that can cause potential health problems when there are no physical ailments can be considered abusive. Maybe others shouldn't be so sensitive to any opinion that isn't inline with their own.

Saying this is abusive is not condemning every transgendered person or a bigoted response.

Perhaps I'm just confused but what exactly is your point? You just expressed that opinion without being banned, congratulations you've learned how to have a civilised discussion. Hopefully the same will eventually apply to some of the people who did get banned.

 

[ScOULaris]

Ugh. What the fuck. Hormone blocking drugs? That's bad parenting, plain and simple. I don't care what their intentions are.

Why must a child become transgender, physically speaking, just because they tend to identify with the interests commonly associated with the societal construct of femininity? Why the fuck can't they just be a boy who likes girly things and leave it at that?

Gender isn't a matter of interests or how you feel. There are males and females in every species of animal on Earth. It's a physical status, nothing more. If you don't identify with what "typical" boys identify with, that doesn't make you a girl. It just means you are different from the societal norm. No need to start taking drugs and having operations. Sorry if I've offended Transgender-GAF, but just stating my opinion here.

 

[Van Owen]

Perhaps I'm just confused but what exactly is your point? You just expressed that opinion without being banned, congratulations you've learned how to have a civilised discussion. Hopefully the same will eventually apply to some of the people who did get banned.

I wouldn't be surprised if I came back to neogaf later in the day and found out I had been banned.

I know the first amendment doesn't apply here, but it's annoying to see someone banned on the first page for saying "child abuse" (unless they went over the line later...haven't read the whole thread).

 

[Femmeworth]

The fuck is going on in this thread? I see blood stains.

 

[Plywood]

The fuck is going on in this thread? I see blood stains.

Touch them to see there final moments.

 

[Devolution]

Ugh. What the fuck. Hormone blocking drugs? That's bad parenting, plain and simple. I don't care what their intentions are.

Why must a child become transgender, physically speaking, just because they tend to identify with the interests commonly associated with the societal construct of femininity? Why the fuck can't they just be a boy who likes girly things and leave it at that?

Gender isn't a matter of interests or how you feel. There are males and females in every species of animal on Earth. It's a physical status, nothing more. If you don't identify with what "typical" boys identify with, that doesn't make you a girl. It just means you are different from the societal norm. No need to start taking drugs and having operations. Sorry if I've offended Transgender-GAF, but just stating my opinion here.

There's transgenderism in the animal kingdom bro.

Love this "species" bullshit people pull out of their ass when it comes to homosexuality and transgenderism, when animals display this as well.

 

[Nappuccino]

There's transgenderism in the animal kingdom bro.

Love this "species" bullshit people pull out of their ass when it comes to homosexuality and transgenderism, when animals display this as well.

I suppose the big question is "where is the line between liking feminine things and having the gender of a woman" (or liking masculine things and having the gender of a man)

 

[water_wendi]

Saying this is abusive is not condemning every transgendered person or a bigoted response.

Your responses have been civil. We disagree but i dont think of you as a bigot. The reason i asked if you were talking about a specific poster was because what you were describing seemed to fit HeadlessRoman.

im just going to say upfront that i assume they were banned not because of bigotry but because of not reading the OP.

A criminal action that should result in the child being removed from their care and them being imprisoned for years. I don't care how well intentioned your lunacy is, this is wrong. Also, what ailment could tommy have that would require medical intervention to delay the onset of puberty?

So besides not reading the OP they describe transsexualism as not being an "ailment."

When someone brought up the fact that the child has threatened to mutilate their genetalia Headless Roman responds with this:

Yeah, because thats real common for the situation. Save yourself the time and effort of posting bullshit. I am informed on the topic.

When i ask if they read the OP or are they just posting bullshit this is the response..

What the fuck does the article have to do with the response you quoted?

All of this points to the most bigoted (thats just imo and im not going to sift through the thread anymore for them) person in this thread being banned for not reading the OP so i dont see why you or anyone else should feel threatened into not speaking up. Don't act like a smarmy jackass that dismiss out of hand the experiences of people who are living what they read about or automatically assume without any proof that the doctors that have led to this decision were inadequately trained or quacks and you should be fine.

 

[ScOULaris]

There's transgenderism in the animal kingdom bro.

Love this "species" bullshit people pull out of their ass when it comes to homosexuality and transgenderism, when animals display this as well.

I realize that, but it doesn't change the fact that "gender" is a physio-biological attribute. As humans, we attach all sorts of importance to the concept of "gender" beyond the biological aspect, but I still don't understand why parents would take it so far as to block hormones in their child because he/she "identifies" with the opposite sex. In an open-minded family such as that, wouldn't they be willing to just have a feminine son or masculine daughter? Why is the physical transformation needed at all?

 

[rdrr gnr]

Actually, that's just how HeadlessRoland always is.

Besides that, a good rule of thumb for posters is: if you aren't interested/concerned enough to read the story in the OP, or the OP itself, it just isn't worth posting. At least not directly about the topic at hand.

 

[Van Owen]

There's transgenderism in the animal kingdom bro.

Such as?

 

[Devolution]

I suppose the big question is "where is the line between liking feminine things and having the gender of a woman" (or liking masculine things and having the gender of a man)

It's up to the individual which is why you have to listen to these people when they say they're not comfortable with themselves physically, instead of automatically shutting them down. The amount of shit they have to go through to get gender reassignment surgery, all those evaluations, should be testament enough to the fact that they want/need it. But alas people keep wanting to treat them with disdain or willful ignorance.

There's also a difference between liking stuff that's culturally been for men or women, and being uncomfortable with yourself physically. One does not necessarily imply the other.