Shiloh Pitt & very young children with gender identity issues

[BrookValley.]

He's not just talking about surgery.  He is saying this is a mental, not a physiological problem.  So instead of encouraging people to transition to the opposite gender, we should be dealing with the underlying issues that are causing them to be unhappy.   

 

For the transgendered, this argument holds that one's feeling of "gender" is a conscious, subjective sense that, being in one's mind, cannot be questioned by others. The individual often seeks not just society's tolerance of this "personal truth" but affirmation of it. Here rests the support for "transgender equality," the demands for government payment for medical and surgical treatments, and for access to all sex-based public roles and privileges.

With this argument, advocates for the transgendered have persuaded several states—including California, New Jersey and Massachusetts—to pass laws barring psychiatrists, even with parental permission, from striving to restore natural gender feelings to a transgender minor. That government can intrude into parents' rights to seek help in guiding their children indicates how powerful these advocates have become.

How to respond? Psychiatrists obviously must challenge the solipsistic concept that what is in the mind cannot be questioned.

...

Another subgroup consists of young men and women susceptible to suggestion from "everything is normal" sex education, amplified by Internet chat groups. These are the transgender subjects most like anorexia nervosa patients: They become persuaded that seeking a drastic physical change will banish their psycho-social problems. "Diversity" counselors in their schools, rather like cult leaders, may encourage these young people to distance themselves from their families and offer advice on rebutting arguments against having transgender surgery. Treatments here must begin with removing the young person from the suggestive environment and offering a counter-message in family therapy.

Then there is the subgroup of very young, often prepubescent children who notice distinct sex roles in the culture and, exploring how they fit in, begin imitating the opposite sex. Misguided doctors at medical centers including Boston's Children's Hospital have begun trying to treat this behavior by administering puberty-delaying hormones to render later sex-change surgeries less onerous—even though the drugs stunt the children's growth and risk causing sterility. Given that close to 80% of such children would abandon their confusion and grow naturally into adult life if untreated, these medical interventions come close to child abuse. A better way to help these children: with devoted parenting.

 

The above was written by Paul McHugh, who is the psychiatrist that shut down the gender identity clinic at Hopkins years ago. His opinion is very outdated and substantiated by little to no scientifically-based evidence. Current medical and mental health guidance does not agree with his stance. He himself admits that most of his opinion on the issue comes from his conservative religious beliefs; the only medical "evidence" he cites for this particular piece is a small study conducted over 40 years ago and now considered outdated/faulty. He not only holds outdated beliefs on transgender issues, he also speaks out against homosexuality, marriage equality, etc.

 

Edited to correct typo. It was the gender identity clinic at Johns Hopkins, not gender issues.

 

[Muttichen]

His opinions aren't based on any evidence or verifiable data, but on opinions and misunderstandings. Thank goodness for the scientific method. This foolishness is going the way of the VCR and other outdated ideas.

 

 

 

He cited studies to back up his claims -- I didn't paste in the whole article.

 

The scientific method?  Seriously? Scientists who find data that contradict the homosexual agenda are vilified.  If you don't believe me, look up Mark Regnerus.  He is a sociologist who did a large, carefully controlled study, published in a respected journal,  that found statistically significant negative outcomes for children raised by same-sex parents.  He had to hire an attorney to defend himself from his attackers.  

[BrookValley.]

He cited studies to back up his claims -- I didn't paste in the whole article.

 

The scientific method?  Seriously? Scientists who find data that contradict the homosexual agenda are vilified.  If you don't believe me, look up Mark Regnerus.  He is a sociologist who did a large, carefully controlled study, published in a respected journal,  that found statistically significant negative outcomes for children raised by same-sex parents.  He had to hire an attorney to defend himself from his attackers.  

 

The study he cites is over 40 years old and now considered obsolete by the majority of professionals in the field.

[BrookValley.]

He cited studies to back up his claims -- I didn't paste in the whole article.

 

The scientific method?  Seriously? Scientists who find data that contradict the homosexual agenda are vilified.  If you don't believe me, look up Mark Regnerus.  He is a sociologist who did a large, carefully controlled study, published in a respected journal,  that found statistically significant negative outcomes for children raised by same-sex parents.  He had to hire an attorney to defend himself from his attackers.  

 

Can you define "homosexual agenda," please?

[Joanne]

He cited studies to back up his claims -- I didn't paste in the whole article.

 

The scientific method?  Seriously? Scientists who find data that contradict the homosexual agenda are vilified.  If you don't believe me, look up Mark Regnerus.  He is a sociologist who did a large, carefully controlled study, published in a respected journal,  that found statistically significant negative outcomes for children raised by same-sex parents.  He had to hire an attorney to defend himself from his attackers.  

 

http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2014/03/04/mark_regnerus_testifies_in_michigan_same_sex_marriage_case_his_study_is.html

[Caroline]

He cited studies to back up his claims -- I didn't paste in the whole article.

 

The scientific method?  Seriously? Scientists who find data that contradict the homosexual agenda are vilified.  If you don't believe me, look up Mark Regnerus.  He is a sociologist who did a large, carefully controlled study, published in a respected journal,  that found statistically significant negative outcomes for children raised by same-sex parents.  He had to hire an attorney to defend himself from his attackers.  

 

Actually, Regnerus's study has been discredited because out of his sample of 3000 kids in same-sex households, only 2 were not from a divorce of an opposite sex household.

[Ravin]

While I generally enjoy the drift this thread has taken, the bickering has started to get old. Please stop engaging individual people to argue. Don't feed a troll.

 

And can someone please answer my question about I thought the science had been established about hormone rushes in pregnancy definitively influencing physical gender, gender identity, and which gender you were going to be attracted to, years before puberty. Is that not the case?

It's one of the theories with some research backing it up, yes.

 

Here is a review article (science journal article): http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21094885

 

Here is an older review article which summarizes why medical transition is done and the hypotheses for brain differentiation:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3739593/

here is a popular article which details an example of a study showing brain differences between transgender and Cisgender brains:

http://www.medicaldaily.com/brain-mapping-gender-identity-what-makes-boy-girl-247122

 

Brain differentiation and its correlate to gender identity is an ongoing area of neuroscience research.

[Muttichen]

Actually, Regnerus's study has been discredited because out of his sample of 3000 kids in same-sex households, only 2 were not from a divorce of an opposite sex household.

 

Here is Regnerus's paper and an article in which he responds to criticisms of his study:

 

http://www.markregnerus.com/uploads/4/0/6/5/4065759/regnerus_july_2012_ssr.pdf

  

http://www.markregnerus.com/uploads/4/0/6/5/4065759/regnerus_response_to_critics_in_nov_2012_ssr.pdf

 

Read it for yourself and look at the data.  

[Ravin]

The study he cites is over 40 years old and now considered obsolete by the majority of professionals in the field.

This is how science works. Constant testing and revision and more testing, with consensus based on the most recent and up to date info.

 

Divorce is another of those topics where they are finding that of itself it's not a predictor of much. Contention and fighting between parents, changes such as reduced financial circumstances, lack of involvement by a parent, and so forth are significant and often go along with divorce, but have similar results even when parents stay married.

[Muttichen]

The above was written by Paul McHugh, who is the psychiatrist that shut down the gender identity clinic at Hopkins years ago. His opinion is very outdated and substantiated by little to no scientifically-based evidence. Current medical and mental health guidance does not agree with his stance. He himself admits that most of his opinion on the issue comes from his conservative religious beliefs; the only medical "evidence" he cites for this particular piece is a small study conducted over 40 years ago and now considered outdated/faulty. He not only holds outdated beliefs on transgender issues, he also speaks out against homosexuality, marriage equality, etc.

 

Edited to correct typo. It was the gender identity clinic at Johns Hopkins, not gender issues.

 

 

We are being told, over and over, that it is only quacks who disagree with the current approaches.  Whatever you think of this guy, he is a psychiatrist at Johns Hopkins.  He's not some crazy Christian who printed out a diploma and hung it on the wall.  

[Mrs Mungo]

Read it for yourself and look at the data.

Am I reading this correctly? He was formally reprimanded for ethical issues, to include (not exclusive to) dishonesty with his data, and you are telling people that they should just look at his data?

[BrookValley.]

We are being told, over and over, that it is only quacks who disagree with the current approaches.  Whatever you think of this guy, he is a psychiatrist at Johns Hopkins.  He's not some crazy Christian who printed out a diploma and hung it on the wall.  

 

That has nothing to do with the fact that he is using outdated information. The area of gender identity isn't studied widely, but there is more current guidance. Like Ravin said, that's how science works. When we know better, we do better.

[Katy]

To those wondering why people care about gender identity, I think it comes from explicitly forbidding cross dressing in the Old Testament.  As far as I can tell, the only reason it's one of the few laws still considered important in Christianity is because Paul had some weird hangups about sex.  Personally, I've always wondered if Paul was gay. Only recently did I learn that's actually a theory often explored in theology.

 

The law is made to serve you, not you the law, and Christ has set you free from the old yoke except in this one area, and in all other areas you have freedom....  You don't need to stick to laws about eating kosher or follow any of the other rules of orthodox judaism, but you'd better not defile your body with anything sexual!  (No I don't believe that personally).

 

Truly I believe the duty as a Christian is not to follow some obscure set of laws that anyone can understand, but to have a relationship with the Holy Spirit and listen and obey at all times.  Constantly re-examining your motivations is much more difficult than following a set of rules.

 

I was listening to someone debate about that show coming up on TLC called My Husband's Not Gay or something like that on YouTube earilier, and a guy said his theory was that in an age where you needed high population so that you wouldn't all die out from a random plague or famine, he could understand the morality that anything that kept you from having children was wrong, but that in an age of scarce resources and overpopulation he would bet that moral theories about having less children=more virtuous would slowly come about and people would be more and more accepting of different sexual identities.   I found it interesting.

[BrookValley.]

Am I reading this correctly? He was formally reprimanded for ethical issues, to include (not exclusive to) dishonesty with his data, and you are telling people that they should just look at his data?

 

I'm sure all those ethical issues were just fairy tales of the Homosexual Agenda.

[Ravin]

Ok.

 

If there is contrary evidence to any of the above, I would question that. If a kid says that he is in great pain, but is laughing and running around playing, maybe he isn't.

 

Not going to debate this with you, though I welcome substantive comments.

You completely missed my point. If you said to your doctor, "I am experiencing chronic pain." And the doctor said to you, "I believe you believe you are in pain." Would you not find the doctor's words condescending?

 

I am trying to reflect how some of your previous statements on this thread with that phrasing have come across.

[Muttichen]

Am I reading this correctly? He was formally reprimanded for ethical issues, to include (not exclusive to) dishonesty with his data, and you are telling people that they should just look at his data?

I'm asking people to consider it for themselves and not believe everything they read in Slate. 

[texasmama]

I read the entire article posted by Muttichen, and it read like an op-ed piece with a few dubious and vague stats thrown in. 

 

What stood out to me is that he stated that Medicare now must pay for gender reassignment change operations and also that a man who is in prison should not have a gender reassignment operation while in prison and then go to a women's prison. The former is a financial/political hotbutton issue, and the latter seems a bizarre outlying example to use which does not lend credibility to the author.

 

Also, it stated that 70-80% of children with transgender issues go on to resolve these and not be transgendered.  That is not enough information to evaluate that statement.  Are we talking about 5 year olds?  10 year olds?  It did say children and not teens.  How is "trangendered" evaluated or measured in children of whatever age this is referring to.  I was quite a tomboy in my pre-pubescent years.  Would I have qualified?  Who can know based on the limited information given?

 

This is an op-ed piece written by an M.D., which still makes it an op-ed piece.  Even if I agreed with the author, I would be cringing at lack of research cited and how general and biased this article is.

 

Please excuse my lack of direct quotes from the article.  Too lazy.  :)

 

 

[Joanne]

To those wondering why people care about gender identity, I think it comes from explicitly forbidding cross dressing in the Old Testament.  As far as I can tell, the only reason it's one of the few laws still considered important in Christianity is because Paul had some weird hangups about sex.  Personally, I've always wondered if Paul was gay. Only recently did I learn that's actually a theory often explored in theology.

 

 

 

It was common in many cultures at the time for men to take young male lovers - common, and expected. They had wives, as well.

 

Paul is one of the reasons I left Christianity. Not because he might have been gay, but because was an arrogant misogynist.

[Tanaqui]

 

What stood out to me is that he stated that Medicare now must pay for gender reassignment change operations and also that a man who is in prison should not have a gender reassignment operation while in prison and then go to a women's prison. The former is a financial/political hotbutton issue, and the latter seems a bizarre outlying example to use which does not lend credibility to the author.

 

Well, it's true that medicare, since last year, is now paying for surgery.

 

As far as trans inmates goes, they suffer from an extremely high rate of rape and vicitimization in prison. They are an extremely vulnerable population, and frankly, no matter what awful things they may have done to merit a prison sentence, they still deserve to be safe. Even when they are given special attention in the name of safety, that special attention often comes in the form of enforced solitary, something which can be damaging psychologically.

 

This is not a simple issue. Our prison system is broken in so many ways. I don't honestly know what the best answer is, although at the moment I suspect it may be "separate prisons for LGBT individuals and other vulnerable populations". That, of course, would be a political non-starter in the US, especially as our prisons are largely run state-by-state instead of federally.

[albeto.]

He cited studies to back up his claims -- I didn't paste in the whole article.

The problems with this publication has been addressed already, so I won't belabor the point.

 

The scientific method?  Seriously?

 

Dead serious. How else do you propose to reliably determine any information? Prayer? Séance? Reading tea leaves? Interpreting dreams? Serious question. If you don't want to use the scientific method - a method of observation, collection of data, analysis of data, reviewed by peers, open to modification as new information comes in - then what method do you propose to use to determine such information as what is healthy and what hinders health?

 

Scientists who find data that contradict the homosexual agenda are vilified.

 

Dramatics aren't necessary, they're distracting, and they take up valuable time. No one is calling anyone a villain. Part of the scientific method is peer review. It is an open-source operation. Questionable methods are discussed, unethical methods are exposed and removed. That's not calling anyone a villain, that's how the scientific method corrects mistakes and misunderstandings for the purpose of solidifying knowledge. He's not being persecuted, he's being called out.

 

If you don't believe me, look up Mark Regnerus.  He is a sociologist who did a large, carefully controlled study, published in a respected journal,  that found statistically significant negative outcomes for children raised by same-sex parents.  He had to hire an attorney to defend himself from his attackers.

Also discussed upthread. There is no "perfect" way to do research, but there are certain red flags that get spotted by people who are familiar with, and recognize the value of the process. The red flags are enormous in the articles you refer to. You're being misled.

[albeto.]

We are being told, over and over, that it is only quacks who disagree with the current approaches.  Whatever you think of this guy, he is a psychiatrist at Johns Hopkins.  He's not some crazy Christian who printed out a diploma and hung it on the wall.  

 

Who is telling you that only quacks disagree with current approaches? Do you know what a peer review process is? From where do you conclude that every opinion is equally valid?

[Mrs Mungo]

I'm asking people to consider it for themselves and not believe everything they read in Slate.

Are you suggesting that the formal reprimand came from Slate? And the court documents?

 

ETA: I am just on my phone, but I found several sources that backed up the claims of a formal reprimand and a document listing over 200 mental health professionals who formally disagreed with the study in question.

[texasmama]

Well, it's true that medicare, since last year, is now paying for surgery.

 

As far as trans inmates goes, they suffer from an extremely high rate of rape and vicitimization in prison. They are an extremely vulnerable population, and frankly, no matter what awful things they may have done to merit a prison sentence, they still deserve to be safe. Even when they are given special attention in the name of safety, that special attention often comes in the form of enforced solitary, something which can be damaging psychologically.

 

This is not a simple issue. Our prison system is broken in so many ways. I don't honestly know what the best answer is, although at the moment I suspect it may be "separate prisons for LGBT individuals and other vulnerable populations". That, of course, would be a political non-starter in the US, especially as our prisons are largely run state-by-state instead of federally.

In some prisons the LGBT population is housed in a separate wing, which seems to be a good answer to this problem.

 

I agree with you that the prison system is broken.

[Caroline]

Here is Regnerus's paper and an article in which he responds to criticisms of his study:

 

http://www.markregnerus.com/uploads/4/0/6/5/4065759/regnerus_july_2012_ssr.pdf

 

http://www.markregnerus.com/uploads/4/0/6/5/4065759/regnerus_response_to_critics_in_nov_2012_ssr.pdf

 

Read it for yourself and look at the data.

I did. i think it is missing a lot of information. For example, his data about children who lived with a parent who had a same-sex romantic relationship--it says at any time in heir lives, not necessarily that the partner lived with them, and not necessarily for a certain length of time.

 

I wonder if you compared the "lesbian mother" data with single mother (not single parent, which is what the study did) if you would have any significant results. Certainly, the author has the data segregated that way, why didn't he choose to publish it?

[albeto.]

I'm asking people to consider it for themselves and not believe everything they read in Slate. 

 

Again with the drama. No one is suggesting one ought to "believe everything they read in Slate." That's silly. It's exaggerations like this that make these arguments of yours look rather like a young child accusing her mother of hating her because she won't let her eat dessert an hour before dinner. The links you provide are problematic in many ways. We're showing you how. I'm asking you to consider what you read against what you know, and to that end, educate yourself. Learn the difference between fact and opinion. Learn how the scientific method works. Learn how it is applied in mental health. Learn about chemistry and physics and neurology.

[Ravin]

Others in this thread have posted links. You just chose to ignore them as it did not support your stance. You have repeatedly ignored everything that has been posted that shows the extreme flaws in your stance, and have fallen back on defending your stance as your right to your beliefs. You have not one time provided a link that defends your stance on the grounds that you do not need to because it is your beliefs.

 

Your posts if the topic was unicorns.

 

I believe in unicorns. My belief is real therefore I do not need to provide any evidence to support it. You prove unicorns are not real. No I am not going to click on the link that shows a large amount of evidence to support your claim to the contrary because my belief is real. You must believe unicorns are real because I believe unicorns are real and you have not shown they are not. Why are you picking on me? These are my beliefs! I believe it so it must be real. You have not proven otherwise and posted links, that I will not read or acknowledge, to prove it.

You forgot to add, "but I believe you believe there is no such thing as unicorns."

 

I just figured our why this bothers me so much. It's not just the condescending tone, it's that such a statement implicitly disregards any and all evidence presented counter to the speaker's position, placing the value of all first-hand testimony of what is going on inside another person in the same knowledge category of "belief" as the speaker's religion. It's a logically false attempt to level the rhetorical playing field.

[albeto.]

You forgot to add, "but I believe you believe there is no such thing as unicorns."

 

I just figured our why this bothers me so much. It's not just the condescending tone, it's that such a statement implicitly disregards any and all evidence presented counter to the speaker's position, placing the value of all first-hand testimony of what is going on inside another person in the same knowledge category of "belief" as the speaker's religion. It's a logically false attempt to level the rhetorical playing field.

 

I'm sorry. I just wanted to read that again.

 

Nail, meet hammer.

 

[unsinkable]

My experience has been that if you are seeing a psychiatrist in addition to a therapist, the psychiatrist does not delve much into the presenting problems. The presumption seems to be that the therapist is handling that part. The most frequently I've seen a psychiatrist in addition to a therapist was once every 4-6 weeks for med check.

 

That is plenty of time for things to go from relatively stable to very bad.

 

I still wonder about the amount of the prescription though. I am interested to hear why they were prescribing so much. And why a medication that has been linked to increased suicidal ideation esp. In teens/children?

http://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/topics/child-and-adolescent-mental-health/antidepressant-medications-for-children-and-adolescents-information-for-parents-and-caregivers.shtml

 

"SSRI medications are considered an improvement over older antidepressant medications because they have fewer side effects and are less likely to be harmful if taken in an overdose, which is an issue for patients with depression already at risk for suicide. They have been shown to be safe and effective for adults.

 

However, use of SSRI medications among children and adolescents ages 10 to 19 has risen dramatically in the past several years. Fluoxetine (Prozac) is the only medication approved by the FDA for use in treating depression in children ages 8 and older. The other SSRI medications and the SSRI-related antidepressant venlafaxine have not been approved for treatment of depression in children or adolescents, but doctors still sometimes prescribe them to children on an "off-label" basis. In June 2003, however, the FDA recommended that paroxetine not be used in children and adolescents for treating MDD.

 

Fluoxetine can be helpful in treating childhood depression, and can lead to significant improvement of depression overall. However, it may increase the risk for suicidal behaviors in a small subset of adolescents. As with all medical decisions, doctors and families should weigh the risks and benefits of treatment for each individual patient."

[Ravin]

We are being told, over and over, that it is only quacks who disagree with the current approaches. Whatever you think of this guy, he is a psychiatrist at Johns Hopkins. He's not some crazy Christian who printed out a diploma and hung it on the wall.

Nope he's a crazy "Christian"* who graduated from medical school and yet has failed to stay up to date on the research and ongoing understanding of the issues at hand because he decided his religious convictions were more important than his Hippocratic oath.

 

*Christian in quotes because I don't think he's representative of the religion as a whole, just his brand of it. Kind of like Osama bin Laden.

[Muttichen]

Again with the drama. No one is suggesting one ought to "believe everything they read in Slate." That's silly. It's exaggerations like this that make these arguments of yours look rather like a young child accusing her mother of hating her because she won't let her eat dessert an hour before dinner. The links you provide are problematic in many ways. We're showing you how. I'm asking you to consider what you read against what you know, and to that end, educate yourself. Learn the difference between fact and opinion. Learn how the scientific method works. Learn how it is applied in mental health. Learn about chemistry and physics and neurology.

This is incredibly insulting. Believe it or not, I am not some uneducated country bumpkin.  I went to a top school and I have an advanced degree.  I know enough about the scientific method to critically read Regnerus's study and understand that he is being attacked for political reasons, not for flaws in his methods. The scientific method means nothing if only one viewpoint is allowed to be expressed.

 

I don't want to go back and forth with this, though.  I'm done. 

[Ravin]

This is incredibly insulting. Believe it or not, I am not some uneducated country bumpkin. I went to a top school and I have an advanced degree. I know enough about the scientific method to critically read Regnerus's study and understand that he is being attacked for political reasons, not for flaws in his methods. The scientific method means nothing if only one viewpoint is allowed to be expressed.

 

I don't want to go back and forth with this, though. I'm done.

The scientific method means nothing if you fake your data and rely on one obsolete study while disregarding a growing mountain of contrary evidence.

[BrookValley.]

You can be an incredibly intelligent individual and still be wrong. Everyone is wrong sometimes. Pointing it out isn't an insult.

[BrookValley.]

I still want someone to explain to me, though, the "political reasons " and "homosexual agenda " stuff. It's political to want fair, unbiased science? It's some sort of nefarious "agenda" to want people of all genders (regardless of how they got there), sexual orientation, and everything in between to be treated equally, with respect and compassion?

 

Who comes up with this stuff? Why do people believe it?

[Katy]

I still want someone to explain to me, though, the "political reasons " and "homosexual agenda " stuff. It's political to want fair, unbiased science? It's some sort of nefarious "agenda" to want people of all genders (regardless of how they got there), sexual orientation, and everything in between to be treated equally, with respect and compassion?

 

Who comes up with this stuff? Why do people believe it?

 

I don't know who came up with it.  FWIW, I tend to be socially liberal and fiscally conservative, so I listen to all sorts of political news.  I've only heard the term "homosexual agenda" by people who were social conservatives and were arguing against equal rights, equal employment benefits, or marriage.

 

Many of them get the opinion from religious beliefs, but the idea that letting people have medical benefits or tax or inheritance or the right to visit someone in the ICU is going to harm them in any way whatsoever mystifies me.  Sure, you can believe that religious belief should have a bigger part in our society or culture or whatever, but I still fail to see how equal rights harms you.

 

I can see how requiring private businesses (a bakery, a wedding chapel owned by a retired minister) to service gay marriages if the business owner has a religious belief against doing so could cause the business owner harm, but freedom of religion and association are entirely different concepts than equal rights, IMO.

[*Lulu*]

http://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/topics/child-and-adolescent-mental-health/antidepressant-medications-for-children-and-adolescents-information-for-parents-and-caregivers.shtml

 

"SSRI medications are considered an improvement over older antidepressant medications because they have fewer side effects and are less likely to be harmful if taken in an overdose, which is an issue for patients with depression already at risk for suicide. They have been shown to be safe and effective for adults.

 

However, use of SSRI medications among children and adolescents ages 10 to 19 has risen dramatically in the past several years. Fluoxetine (Prozac) is the only medication approved by the FDA for use in treating depression in children ages 8 and older. The other SSRI medications and the SSRI-related antidepressant venlafaxine have not been approved for treatment of depression in children or adolescents, but doctors still sometimes prescribe them to children on an "off-label" basis. In June 2003, however, the FDA recommended that paroxetine not be used in children and adolescents for treating MDD.

 

Fluoxetine can be helpful in treating childhood depression, and can lead to significant improvement of depression overall. However, it may increase the risk for suicidal behaviors in a small subset of adolescents. As with all medical decisions, doctors and families should weigh the risks and benefits of treatment for each individual patient."

Thanks for the link.

 

I don't know why I thought it was Zoloft they had prescribed her?

 

(Oh, could it be reading this thread and breaking up WWIII in my living room simultaneously? :P )

 

I read somewhere in this massive thread that the dosage Leelah was prescribed was higher than normal. I don't know that we (the public) will ever be privy to the reasons for the dosage amount. I'd like to think it was for a good reason and not incompetence or error.

[albeto.]

I still want someone to explain to me, though, the "political reasons " and "homosexual agenda " stuff. It's political to want fair, unbiased science? It's some sort of nefarious "agenda" to want people of all genders (regardless of how they got there), sexual orientation, and everything in between to be treated equally, with respect and compassion?

 

Who comes up with this stuff? Why do people believe it?

 

It's an awkward conspiracy theory to me. It's like the homosexual agenda version of Big Brother: Big Sodomy. Big Sodomy wants to turn our kids gay. Big Sodomy is silencing the truth-speakers. Big Sodomy is going to criminalize being straight with the exception of politically correct breeding programs, as determined by Big Sodomy.

[BrookValley.]

 

Thanks, Katy. I am being somewhat sarcastic, however. I know where it comes from, I just don't understand why people still follow this line of thinking.

 

 

It's an awkward conspiracy theory to me. It's like the homosexual agenda version of Big Brother: Big Sodomy. Big Sodomy wants to turn our kids gay. Big Sodomy is silencing the truth-speakers. Big Sodomy is going to criminalize being straight with the exception of politically correct breeding programs, as determined by Big Sodomy.

Yeah. This is sort of the picture I have in my brain. Which is why I have trouble understanding why people still follow this line of thinking.

[TranquilMind]

You completely missed my point. If you said to your doctor, "I am experiencing chronic pain." And the doctor said to you, "I believe you believe you are in pain." Would you not find the doctor's words condescending?

 

I am trying to reflect how some of your previous statements on this thread with that phrasing have come across.

That's different that what I was saying.  If you tell the doctor you are in pain, that will generally be supported by your demeanor and there isn't a concrete contrary piece of evidence to which the doctor can point and say, no...you aren't in pain.  See this right here;  it means you are not in pain.  Sometimes he can tell that something is not out of alignment, even if it hurts you, like your back.   But pain is subjective, and varies by person. 

 

My husband and I had the same laser eye surgery.  I said "Ouch" once or twice.  He passed out and said it was awful (of course he does tend to have weird vasovagal responses). 

 

[dirty ethel rackham]

I think this thread could also be potentially hurtful to our dear Dirty Ethel Rackham, Ellen. While I talk a good game and walk a good walk in being a safe place at school, I haven't had to understand from a parent's point of view. When I read what she wrote, it really opened my mind towards what parents are feeling. What she wrote both broke my heart and lifted me up. Broke my heart in seeing the pain of her child and lifted me up in how she and the family found the strength and heart and love. So Ellen, if you are reading this thread, you are an inspiration to me.

 

Thank you so much for your words of support.  I had to step away from this thread for a couple of days because it was getting too upsetting to read.  Many of the opinions here are why I have a very angry 18 yo kid who is often hanging on by a thread.  These opinions help me to have more grace and understanding for my child as I try to help them with their anger and to help them understand that the tone used in communication does matter - as we see here..  We pray that we will get to a point where K will not be expecting every comment to be filled with transphobic vindictiveness and see most ignorance as something that can be fixed with education and patience. 

[Corraleno]

This is incredibly insulting. Believe it or not, I am not some uneducated country bumpkin.  I went to a top school and I have an advanced degree.  I know enough about the scientific method to critically read Regnerus's study and understand that he is being attacked for political reasons, not for flaws in his methods. The scientific method means nothing if only one viewpoint is allowed to be expressed.

 

No, Regnerus's study was commissioned for political reasons; it has been criticized by pretty much everyone except the religious right for methodological reasons. It was funded by an openly anti-gay organization, the Witherspoon Institute, which was explicitly looking for someone to provide "research" to back their claim that gay marriage was harmful. Witherspoon told Regnerus what conclusions they expected to see from the study, and were closely involved in the process of the study — Regnerus was censured for having lied about this blatant conflict of interest, and when the truth came out, the journal that published his research said it should never have been published. 

 

His study did NOT focus on children raised by same-sex couples, but rather children who were mostly raised by single parents following divorce; if the parent had ever had any kind of same-sex relationship — or if the child even thought the parent had, with no evidence that it actually occurred — the parents were labeled as "lesbian" or "gay." Out of his entire sample, exactly TWO families involved children raised entirely by a stable same-sex couple — and those kids did OK! So his "conclusions" were totally bogus, politically motivated, and completely unsubstantiated by his own study. 

 

Still, the Witherspoon Institute certainly got their $700,000 worth, since Regnerus's study continues to be widely cited by those who oppose marriage equality, despite the disreputable ethics and lack of scientific validity.

[TranquilMind]

I still want someone to explain to me, though, the "political reasons " and "homosexual agenda " stuff. It's political to want fair, unbiased science? It's some sort of nefarious "agenda" to want people of all genders (regardless of how they got there), sexual orientation, and everything in between to be treated equally, with respect and compassion?

 

Who comes up with this stuff? Why do people believe it?

The idea that there is an agenda  has its origins in a book written by Marshal Kirk and Hunter Madsen called "After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of the Gays in the 90s". Kirk and Madsen write that they intend to “get tough†on straights and take a cue from Madison Avenue in selling the agenda. Exact words:  "We are talking about propaganda."  The point was to persuade the public that gays were victims of circumstance and did not choose their sexual actions.    Of course, this morphed into a Civil Rights argument a little later - which is always a winner if you can box yourself into the parameters-  and took off. 

 

There is a little about it here, down the page:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall_Kirk

 

It isn't just some imaginary thing that some Christian dreamed up.  Look it up. 

 

Here is an article from the Free Republic:  http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/1147428/posts

[dirty ethel rackham]

Here is what you don't get: MOM lost a MALE child, her oldest son. 

 

Whether son thought he was a son anymore or not, this is the loss that mom grieves.  She gave birth to a baby boy, with all the hopes and dreams that this entails.  This is what she has lost.

 

 

Surely, you aren't unable to see this entirely.  Even those who have accepted gender switches in their kids grieve the loss of the child they knew - look at Cher.  She discussed this very thing, about how it was like the "death" of Chastity, her daughter, when Chaz came into being, and she had to grieve that.

 

Why do you (general you, those who are castigating the parents) not allow these parents that dignity to grieve what they lost?  That's amazing to me.

Yes, they are grieving the child they lost.  I am grieving the child I lost.  But I am different from them.  I accept my child.  I did not do what these people did  .... treat my child as evil ... tell my child that they are sinful ... cut my child off from all support.  I got my then suicidal child help from a therapist who specializes in LGBT issues.  I learned about this and have compassion for my child.  I treat my child with dignity that they denied their child.  I would bet that if you asked K, I am sure they would tell you all the things I did wrong.But part of that comes from the arrogance that many 18 year-olds have regarding their parents.  I know I suffered from that "affliction" when I was a young adult. 

[dirty ethel rackham]

I think the only thing I can equate this to is when my son was diagnosed as intellectually disabled.  I mourned for quite a time about the loss of the child *I thought I had*.  Heck, some days I still do.  But the bottom line is this...  (warning: religious talk a-comin'.  skip to the next paragraph if you don't want to hear it )...

 

God doesn't make mistakes.  And how a person *IS* is just how he *IS*.  None of us where handed a guarantee in writing when our children were born.  There's no buy-back plan.  There's no returns.  There's no refunds.  You get what you get; your child is who he is regardless of how you want him to be.  (I'm using male pronoun because that's all I have is boys.)  I *thought* I had a normal-intelligence child.  For years and years I thought that, and really had no reason to think otherwise.  Imagine my surprise when I got the news of how he REALLY is.  And then I had to mourn the loss of the child I thought I had and move into acceptance of the child that I *do* have.  THIS is the child God gave me.  I'm not sure why, but I know that God doesn't make mistakes.  I'm sure there's a reason, and I'll find out why on the other side, but for now I just have to trust that this isn't a mistake.  I can't treat my child as if he was a mistake.  He was woven together in complete perfection according to God's standard, not mine.  And it's foolish of me to try to change him into a normally intelligent person, because he never will be.  But I still love him immensely, and even though he isn't what I *thought* he was going to be, I can't stop loving him just because of that.  I think this is as close as I can come to relating to the experience of what a parent of a gender dyphoric person must feel.

 

And okay, I lied.  There's no next paragraph.  (LOL)

 

This is very close.  There are a lot more confounding issues, but you come very close.  I am still working on the "God doesn't make mistakes" part when my faith tradition is not particularly accepting.  But I have found that the members of my church community that I have confided in have been very supportive. 

 

[dirty ethel rackham]

One thing that I have been pondering is that, in the CNN article I posted, Carla Alcorn stated that she had exactly one conversation with her child about the child's feelings of being transgender. This leads me to wonder ... when your child comes to you with something as big as "I think I am in the wrong body," why is it something that is discussed only one time in two years? If that were my child, you can bet your sweet turnips that it would be an ongoing discussion. Unless the parent simply doesn't want to discuss it and hopes it will go away, how can that issue NOT be one that entails multiple discussions?

 

Actually, it is not very surprising at all.  My child is very reluctant to discuss things with us and has only done so in any depth in the therapists office.  I am sure that Leelah (sorry if I got the spelling wrong) was all too aware of her parents attitudes and had a great deal of fear.  Plus, if her reaction was what Leelah has described, is it all that surprising that she did not feel safe elaborating? 

 

My child also had some preconceived ideas about how dh and I would react and that is why it took strong suicical feelings for them to open up to us.  K was extrapolating the views of some very conservative members of our church to be our views.  Plus, depression and some Asperger-like tendencies can skew thinking as well. 

 

[Joanne]

The science is not real clear on any of this. It is very young.

 

 

There is a certain arrogance on both sides of this convo.

.

 

The science may be developing regarding trans and intersex but the psychology of honor, care, nurture and love between parent and child is straightforward.

[TranquilMind]

Yes, they are grieving the child they lost.  I am grieving the child I lost.  But I am different from them.  I accept my child.  I did not do what these people did  .... treat my child as evil ... tell my child that they are sinful ... cut my child off from all support.  I got my then suicidal child help from a therapist who specializes in LGBT issues.  I learned about this and have compassion for my child.  I treat my child with dignity that they denied their child.  I would bet that if you asked K, I am sure they would tell you all the things I did wrong.But part of that comes from the arrogance that many 18 year-olds have regarding their parents.  I know I suffered from that "affliction" when I was a young adult. 

 

I don't know your story but no parent should ever have to bury a child.   

I'm sorry you have suffered loss and pray that all will turn out well.

[Joanne]

I don't know your story but no parent should ever have to bury a child.

I'm sorry you have suffered loss and pray that all will turn out well.

?? How can you have READ these threads and not know DER's story?

[texasmama]

Actually, it is not very surprising at all.  My child is very reluctant to discuss things with us and has only done so in any depth in the therapists office.  I am sure that Leelah (sorry if I got the spelling wrong) was all too aware of her parents attitudes and had a great deal of fear.  Plus, if her reaction was what Leelah has described, is it all that surprising that she did not feel safe elaborating? 

 

My child also had some preconceived ideas about how dh and I would react and that is why it took strong suicical feelings for them to open up to us.  K was extrapolating the views of some very conservative members of our church to be our views.  Plus, depression and some Asperger-like tendencies can skew thinking as well. 

 

In general, teens are reluctant to talk to parents.  With my two kids who have reached teenhood thus far, I have been gobsmackingly surprised by the things they keep to themselves, sometimes for years.  Not small things, either.  And I am accepting and loving and difficult to shock and a therapist who specialized in kids, adolescents and families.  Yet my kids kept silent.  It is so very humbling.

[TranquilMind]

?? How can you have READ these threads and not know DER's story?

Well, I'm sorry

 

There are thousands of threads on this forum, and I come here sporadically.  Are you up to date on every person's life story?  That's pretty incredible as there are thousands of members.  I also don't get to each post in every thread, even if I read some of the thread.  There are nearly a thousand on this post alone, as I recall. 

 

I did a search but nothing came up, which is possibly because I don't know exactly what to search for.  Seems like she has/had a child whom she calls K that she referred to as "they" a few times, so I am assuming that it is a trans situation.  Maybe I'm just not searching correctly on this forum. 

 

At any rate, that must be hard.  

I found some posts.  She posts about dogs a lot and seems to volunteer in that area.  She also asks, "If you were my (item), where would you be?"  And other fun threads or gripes. And a few "Hey we need to talk to a coach,how to handle" type threads.  

[Paige]

He's not just talking about surgery.  He is saying this is a mental, not a physiological problem.  So instead of encouraging people to transition to the opposite gender, we should be dealing with the underlying issues that are causing them to be unhappy.   

 

 

I can understand why people would call this a mental problem because the physical body likely appears healthy, and it is obviously the brain telling the person that the gender is wrong. However, we are not at a point where we can safely change the brain. There's evidence that the brain feels the way it feels because of the way it developed in the womb. The evidence suggests that people do not develop feelings of being transgendered due to trauma, parenting, or other life circumstances, and that the feelings do not significantly change over a person's lifetime. It isn't something like depression which comes and goes. I am highly skeptical of where he got his statistics that 80% of people would change their mind and no longer believe they literally were a different gender. Furthermore, the evidence suggests that when people are supported in their beliefs and are able to live as the gender they believe they are in their brains, they have better outcomes.

 

I am not an expert on LGBT issues, so I'm just basing this on my years old university courses and whatever random articles and media reports I've seen and I could be wrong. 

 

So, assuming that we cannot safely fix the brain to match the body, what's the harm in trying to work with what we can, which is the physical body and social environment? It's about helping people. If the hormonal treatments, sex reassignment surgeries, and allowing the person to live as the other gender did not improve outcomes, that would be totally different! But since it does, and nothing else we know of helps, why not support the person's understanding of who he or she is? I see no harm in that. 

 

Also, even if we could change the brain so it feels like it is the expected gender, do we want to? That seems so dangerous to me. I am a woman. If my mind was somehow changed to that of a male, would I still be me? Would me personality remain intact and would my friends and family know me? The brain is so unknown to us- as much as we don't know about the rest of the body, I still feel that messing around with someone's brain is scarier. 

 

And FWIW, I am Christian and don't feel my beliefs go against anything in my faith.