|
Post by The_L on Dec 17, 2011 6:56:23 GMT -5
NOM's mouthpiece, The Ruth Institute, is doing a poll: "Does an eleven year old have the mental acuity to decide whether he wants to be a boy or a girl?" I think if enough transgendered and trans-positive folks vote "Yes," we may be able to give them a much-needed wakeup call. NOM, America does not agree with you. You are on the wrong side of history. You will lose.
|
|
|
Post by Shane for Wax on Dec 17, 2011 7:14:54 GMT -5
I ponder if this is related to the twin siblings that are making the news recently. too much of a coincidence not to be.
I've run in to people who knew they were 'different' when they were toddlers. I think children can know. But I don't know at what age they should be allowed to transition.
|
|
|
Post by N. De Plume on Dec 17, 2011 8:33:25 GMT -5
I seriously would not know. But this kind of thing is not something that can be decided by a poll. And this kind of group always needs to be taken down a peg.
Let the voting commence.
|
|
|
Post by Tenfold_Maquette on Dec 17, 2011 9:05:04 GMT -5
Needs more votes. "Yes" is still behind by about 13%.
|
|
|
Post by Rat Of Steel on Dec 17, 2011 9:28:51 GMT -5
I seriously would not know. But this kind of thing is not something that can be decided by a poll. And this kind of group always needs to be taken down a peg. Let the voting commence. One would think they'd have learned their lesson with the poll they did about SSM and civil unions (it wound up being 2 to 1 in favor of either SSM or civil unions). Fundies have shown remarkable resistance to learning much of anything, though. *sighs and shakes his head*I've run in to people who knew they were 'different' when they were toddlers. I think children can know. But I don't know at what age they should be allowed to transition.
|
|
|
Post by askold on Dec 17, 2011 9:49:45 GMT -5
"Does an eleven year old have the mental acuity to decide whether he wants to be a boy or a girl?"
Good question.
My gut says no, but my guts are not gualified to answer that question so I will defer to medical/psychology professionals in this case.
|
|
|
Post by Shane for Wax on Dec 17, 2011 9:54:41 GMT -5
Yes Rat, I know all about Kim. Thank you. Kim is one case, though and everyone is different. Things like this you can't place a bar for. Though I personally would not have trusted my 12 year old self to be able to understand all the implications of HRT and such like that.
|
|
|
Post by N. De Plume on Dec 17, 2011 10:04:30 GMT -5
Now, the thing that has bothered me is that one would think that hormone therapy would be most effective with a pubescent subject. You know—fix those chemicals before they due much “damage.” I’m relatively uninformed on the subject, so I admit that I do not know how true that is. But if that’s true, that just brings us back to the informed consent dilemma. Stress on the informed. Kind of a crap situation.
Any thoughts?
|
|
|
Post by erictheblue on Dec 17, 2011 10:30:40 GMT -5
Now, the thing that has bothered me is that one would think that hormone therapy would be most effective with a pubescent subject. You know—fix those chemicals before they due much “damage.” I’m relatively uninformed on the subject, so I admit that I do not know how true that is. But if that’s true, that just brings us back to the informed consent dilemma. Stress on the informed. Kind of a crap situation. Any thoughts? I may be misunderstanding you. If so, sorry... I cannot speak for MtF's, but an FtM would have a huge advantage of starting HRT before the onset of puberty. First and most obviously - no breast growth! I got lucky - I'm only a B cup. There were guys in the LiveJournal FtM community that had D or larger. They can be removed, but that requires money. The second benefit is skeletal structure. While hormones can change how fat is distributed, they cannot change skeletal structure (once past late teens or early 20s). Starting hormones before the bone ends fuse would allow a more gender-normative height. I'm 5'6, which is a little short for a guy, but not too out of the ordinary. But if someone ended up 5'2 and started transition in their mid- to late-20s, he's going to be really short for a guy.
|
|
|
Post by N. De Plume on Dec 17, 2011 10:48:40 GMT -5
may be misunderstanding you. If so, sorry... No, actually, that’s all good. It’s giving support to my initial assumption. Physically, it would be better to start early. Psychologically—well, that’s probably dependent on the individual case. Subject Change: I just got thinking about the name of this organization. “The Ruth Institute.” I am not seeing anything that says where they took the name. But I can’t help but think of the Biblical Ruth, which I find interesting, to say the least. The Ruth-Naomi relationship is sometimes described as having a lesbian subtext. But then Ruth married a guy—Boaz. Is this organization’s name meant to be a celebration of closteted marriage?
|
|
|
Post by Oriet on Dec 17, 2011 10:50:35 GMT -5
Hormone blockers at a young age actually pose no problem, as it has been used to treat precocious puberty for quite some time with no ill effect. This then allows them to have more time to consider the ramifications of being transgender as well as allowing for more brain development to make the determination. While many who know at a prepubescent age which gender they are, many also do not really know, which is why it is important to ensure they have options. The next step would be to then introduce low levels of the target hormones (oestrogen or testosterone) for a short time (probably 4-6 weeks). This won't be enough to really affect physiological changes from them, but is plenty of time to see how they mentally respond to the hormones. If they do terribly on them then it's clear they need to re-evaluate themselves (with a therapist's help, as it is a complicated matter; also, not all transgendered are transsexual), but if they do well on those hormones then it's also pretty clear that it's the correct path of treatment. Why is it important to start hormone replacement therapy at a young age instead of waiting till they're an adult? Easy, it ensures they do not have improper development. This goes far beyond things like facial/body hair and breast development, as the hormones during puberty also change bone structure, such as the width and tilt of the pelvis and the broadness of the shoulders. This also makes transition cheaper (as hair and breast removal are not exactly that cheap) and safer (as you don't have to worry about as many invasive surgeries, whether they go for crotch alteration or not), it also allows them to grow up in the appropriate gender role. As for them being informed of everything that's going on with it, that's already done. The current Standards of Care used in the diagnosis and treatment of trans patients really makes sure of that (and in fact goes too far with its restrictions, but that's another topic). In fact, them being informed is vital as part of the diagnosis itself, even before working to find the correct forms of treatment, so I really am not concerned at all about the patients being uninformed, even when they're 11.
|
|
|
Post by N. De Plume on Dec 17, 2011 11:37:52 GMT -5
All right. Totally cool. I am more informed and educated than I was when I woke up this morning. ;D
|
|
|
Post by foolishwisdom on Dec 17, 2011 11:46:58 GMT -5
All right. Totally cool. I am more informed and educated than I was when I woke up this morning. ;D Nothing like a cup of education in morning, with a bowl of knowledge, and wisdom on the side.
|
|
|
Post by shykid on Dec 17, 2011 17:53:20 GMT -5
Needs more votes. "Yes" is still behind by about 13%. The gap is 7% now. At this rate, "yes" should overcome "no" sometime tomorrow at the latest, provided they don't close the poll and whine that dem queerz sabotaged it (or just remove it and pretend it never happened), like the past 8,327,482 times bigots made an anti-LGBT online poll and lost. These jackasses never learn.
|
|
|
Post by foolishwisdom on Dec 17, 2011 18:32:59 GMT -5
Needs more votes. "Yes" is still behind by about 13%. The gap is 7% now. At this rate, "yes" should overcome "no" sometime tomorrow at the latest, provided they don't close the poll and whine that dem queerz sabotaged it (or just remove it and pretend it never happened), like the past 8,327,482 times bigots made an anti-LGBT online poll and lost. These jackasses never learn. Wait, if that's the case, why bother voting at all? If it's mostly "yes", then they'll call foul; if it's mostly "no", then they'll just boast, "see? the American people has spoken!". Ether way, the only people who are going to take this vote seriously are people who'll never change their minds anyway.
|
|