Bad parents or bad physicians?

[Sephiroth]

Force feeding their perverted liberal world view

There we go, now that's what we've all been waiting for

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[BHaus9]

There we go, now that's what we've all been waiting for

Half of me hoped this was a joke. The other half wept because I knew it wasn't.

 

[Sephiroth]

Half of me hoped this was a joke. The other half wept because I knew it wasn't.

it was really only a matter of time before someone threw out the "evil liberal agenda" bit. we all saw it coming a mile away.

 

[Drrrrrr. Celty]

Hah... half the people on here have their heads waaaayyy up their asses. Honestly he's on hormone blockers, he's not getting his dick cut off, albeit seems like he might just do it himself if nothing happens.
And finally the attack on the fact that his mothers are lesbians is completely ignorant and frankly a ridiculous last ditch attempt to break the argument. Obviously if you cannot logically win against decades of psychiatric research, you'd better either resort to calling someone an evil demon.

Anyways... in my opinion this is a difficult procedure, but he likely suffices all of the DSM's requirements for GID and is likely not malingering.


Also to make the distinction again, sex and gender are two different things. Gender is a social construct derived very little off of biology and sex is a completely biological trait.

 

[sirenomelia]

So I was right to speculate you had a political bias, and I think that's prohibiting you from examining the subject objectively. For example it seems you have taken hormone therapy to imply performing sex reassignment surgery on the child. The subject is delaying puberty, not performing surgery.

You might be unaware however sexual (re)assignment surgeries are performed on otherwise healthy children....babies, all the time. This often happens in the case of ambiguous genitalia whether it poses a health risk or not under the assumption that the child would be psychologically traumatized or "confused" if left with the genitalia they had.
Not only that, but there is a strong bias to surgically re-assign otherwise healthy male children to females in the event ambiguous genitalia or sometimes even when they have an unusually small penis regardless of whether or not they have healthy testes.

Hormone therapy is rather common in society for various reasons, as I'm sure your aware of. My great grandmother had a hysterectomy when she was in her mid 20's and had hormone shots every month until she died at the age of 91. That would have only been keeping in accordance with nature until she was in her late 40's or early 50's. It's true that certain hormone therapies have been associated with an increased risk of developing breast cancer and liver damage but when administered properly I believe the risk to be minimal. You might have other opinions on hormone therapy in general. Most doctors leave it to the patient to decide when it exists as a treatment option for them but some feel strongly one way or another.

Well I think there could be a legitimate medical basis based on what I know of intersexed conditions and the role of hormones in the womb on the development of gender and the brain. I invite you to research the subject more.

I can point you to various resources if you wish.

I have no bias. You do. Radical extreme liberal ideology as is the case in this article is not enlightening, mature, educated or sophisticated, but rather is as *****ic and destructive as 'conservative' religious cults who handle rattlesnakes, drink strichnine, and deny their children life saving blood transfusions. I am trained in surgery (Im going to go out on a limb and assume you're not) and the vast majority of neonatal consults for this issue are not "otherwise healthy children" but are secondary to chromosomal/ developmental/ metabolic derrangements with downstream sequence effects that are managed medically. And for the record removing someone's uterus has nothing to do with hormones and feminization- that function is performed by the ovaries under stimulation from the pituitary. So go back and review your high school health book tomorrow before you come back here and blather messages and have no clue what you're talking about- a habit which unfortunately is the norm for people who share your values. The child from this article is phenotypically a healthy male and its completely assanine to medically molest him because his parents spend too much time eating and watching Lifetime movies that they have learned all men are evil and that he shouldnt be one.

 

[NickNaylor]

I have no bias. You do. Radical extreme liberal ideology as is the case in this article is not enlightening, mature, educated or sophisticated, but rather is as *****ic and destructive as 'conservative' religious cults who handle rattlesnakes, drink strichnine, and deny their children life saving blood transfusions. I am trained in surgery (Im going to go out on a limb and assume you're not) and the vast majority of neonatal consults for this issue are not "otherwise healthy children" but are secondary to chromosomal/ developmental/ metabolic derrangements with downstream sequence effects that are managed medically. And for the record removing someone's uterus has nothing to do with hormones and feminization- that function is performed by the ovaries under stimulation from the pituitary. So go back and review your high school health book tomorrow before you come back here and blather messages and have no clue what you're talking about- a habit which unfortunately is the norm for people who share your values. The child from this article is phenotypically a healthy male and its completely assanine to medically molest him because his parents spend too much time eating and watching Lifetime movies that they have learned all men are evil and that he shouldnt be one.

This gave me a good laugh.

 

[Drrrrrr. Celty]

This gave me a good laugh.

I wonder what his opinion on other issues are...
Abortion
Homosexuality
Feminism
Obamacare
Public education....
And so on.

 

[Zork]

I have no bias. You do. Radical extreme liberal ideology as is the case in this article is not enlightening, mature, educated or sophisticated, but rather is as *****ic and destructive as 'conservative' religious cults who handle rattlesnakes, drink strichnine, and deny their children life saving blood transfusions. I am trained in surgery (Im going to go out on a limb and assume you're not) and the vast majority of neonatal consults for this issue are not "otherwise healthy children" but are secondary to chromosomal/ developmental/ metabolic derrangements with downstream sequence effects that are managed medically. And for the record removing someone's uterus has nothing to do with hormones and feminization- that function is performed by the ovaries under stimulation from the pituitary. So go back and review your high school health book tomorrow before you come back here and blather messages and have no clue what you're talking about- a habit which unfortunately is the norm for people who share your values.

I'm not a liberal. In fact I don't identify with one political ideology or another because my views are formed on a case by case basis. It's when you choose a "team" so to speak, that you start to warp things to a particular agenda.

I'm not addressing the article specifically but the issue of gender identity and intersexed conditions in general.

You are correct in that I'm not a surgeon. I don't know how to perform a surgery (safely), but I am very knowledgeable about intersexed conditions and gender, and that knowledge comes from sound scientific sources, which I've offered to share with you.

My great grandmother had everything removed. But that's entirely irrelevant. What's relevant is she was on hormone replacement much longer than her body would have naturally made these hormones in quantity, and it was brought up as a counter argument to your seemingly negative views on hormone therapy.

Surgeries on intersexed children with ambiguous or malformed genitalia are often performed to "normalize" their sex regardless of whether or not the condition presents a threat to the child. These are not just surgeries to remove tissue that has a high probability of becoming cancerous, or to repair fistulas, hernias, or potentially dangerous structural abnormalities, but to make the child look one sex, or another, with female being the most common sex that is chosen, because it's easier to make a suitable vagina than a functional penis.

A few questions for you:
If you happened upon a baby with ambiguous genitalia and it was found the child was an XY male with the testes determining gene, but the testes presented a high likelihood of becoming cancerous, provided the child had no other potentially dangerous health issues that you could fix, and assuming the parents depended on you to decide what was best, would you...

a) Remove the testes and leave the genitalia how it is.
b) Remove the testes and assign the child as a female since that would be easier.
c) Remove the testes and assign the child as a male since genetically that's what the child is.
d) Other (explain).

Now assume the child had functioning testes that you had no reason to believe were at a greater risk than usually of becoming cancerous. Would that change whether or not you decided to normalize the genitalia and would it change how you decided to normalize it?

What if you were presented with an older child who was an XX male who wished to physically be female?

There are no right or wrong answers to these questions. I'm just trying to understand your reasoning and what you use to determine what you view as right and wrong, and because these are important questions to think about.

How do you decide your own ethical boundaries and what is the right thing to do and what is the wrong thing to do with people who are grey in a black and white world?

The child from this article is phenotypically a healthy male and its completely assanine to medically molest him because his parents spend too much time eating and watching Lifetime movies that they have learned all men are evil and that he shouldnt be one.

I'm willing to listen to your views on this issue but I would have a hard time considering them if you don't voice them with a logical or reasonable argument.

I understand you probably identify as a conservative and that you think it's wrong for someone to change their sex, or at least for someone to delay the puberty of a child who has GID, and I understand you consider anyone who thinks otherwise is a radical liberal, but I don't understand how you determine that it's wrong....you could start by voicing what your fears are concerning allowing these things to happen.

You've stated things such as issues with hormone therapy but in light of the fact that that's so common, and that I speculate that's not your main concern, I think that's more of an issue that needs to be considered in these issues rather than a strong argument against such things.

 

[45408]

I imagine for the same reason most people do.

I doubt it.

Why are you asking me?

You bumped a month-old thread about controversial topics here, and you clearly had a lot to get off your chest here:

I think there are two things that anyone going into the medical field should keep in mind.
1. Anxiety disorders can be hard to control and severely debilitating.
2. You cannot always tell how much a disorder or illness impacts the patient from a clinical examination.

I speak from experience as I have early onset OCD, which is actually a basal ganglia dysregulation disorder, more similar neurologically to a movement disorder like Tourette's or Parkinsons, and can be innate or caused by physical damage, and I have a neuromuscular disorder with intermittent symptoms.

My OCD generally does not respond well to medication, and my childhood was characterized by trying one medication after another with little positive result, and a lot of negative results. I was hospitalized once and was so fed up at one point that I begged them to try a bilateral cingulotomy. I had become severely sleep deprived due to the OCD to the point where I had started having seizures.

I was on SSI for the first few years of my adult life while I tried to find a way to manage my condition. SSI is not easy to get. It takes a lot more than one doctor's note but I had a medical file as thick as a phone book documenting my condition from the age of 6. At the time I received $600 a month. $400 went to rent, utilities and it was supposed to include my portion of food as well but it was usually the case that there was nothing to eat. The $200 that remained was supposed to go to transportation costs, personal hygiene items, medical care not covered by medi-cal, and clothing when needed but I frequently had to put it towards food. Needless to say, I ate a lot of cheap breaded items and most of my clothes were on their way out.

If you know people on SSI who are driving cars they spent tens of thousands of dollars on, or who are buying flat screen TV's, I can assure you they didn't get that money from the social security administration.

I did have a gym membership, however that was to get rid of the 100lbs I gained from the medication that didn't work.

I eventually got the OCD under control and am no longer on SSI, but I still have a hard time driving...I can't shake the feeling I've ran over someone when I hit a bump, and when I get stressed I have a hard time controlling it. I used to re-write homework problems compulsively in school because I didn't feel I was doing it right even though I was, and this would consume me for 10 hours straight sometimes.

The neuromuscular disorder was consistently missed by clinical examinations because most doctors aren't familiar with it and I was frequently asymptotic when I was examined. I could be fine one day and not fine the next. I could be fine one hour and not fine the next.

Remember we have all of these fancy medical tests now days because there are a lot of things that can't be detected on clinical evaluations. Eventually a person is going to come to you who is at the end of their rope because they are struggling with some condition that has severely impacted their lives and has been brushed off by other doctors who were just not knowledgeable about it or were of the erroneous opinion that if they couldn't see that something was wrong then nothing was wrong, and you're going to brush them off too, and they're going to go and kill themselves, because that's how depressed people who are struggling with undiagnosed or invisible conditions can get.

It's your job to have understanding for these patients, not doubt them when they say something is troubling them. If you can't understand that then you shouldn't go into medicine.

 

[Zork]

I doubt it.


You bumped a month-old thread about controversial topics here, and you clearly had a lot to get off your chest here:

If I come across a thread I feel I have comments on I usually comment. I generally don't pay attention to the date if I feel it is something particularly important because things can last a while on the internet and I've found helpful comments from others on posts as much as 10 years old.

I did not come here with a beef against the medical community if that's the impression you got (which I admit it was not unreasonable to assume as it was the first post I made here). As I said though, the original post was spurred by a paramedic who seemed to have misconceptions about anxiety disorders, and those on disability for things not readily apparent to him. As an individual who does have invisible disabilities and who was receiving SSI at one time when I was really in a bad condition, I'm frequently subjected to being mischaracterized by people who aren't educated on the matter and it gets tiring to deal with that ignorance in addition to the disorders themselves, especially when it comes from those who you would think would be more educated on disabilities and health matters than the general public.

I was happily reading comical experiences up until that point.

If my post made you as a doctor feel attacked, then I apologize. That was not the intent.
In fact I was not even thinking of surgeons when I wrote it. My intent was to better educate people on sub-clinical or invisible conditions in general because they can be no less difficult for people to deal with than visible conditions, and often times, they can be more difficult to deal with because of the lack of resources that comes from the ignorance of others or not having a formal diagnosis or even a doctor who believes you enough to pursue a diagnosis. I'm not talking about every doctor. I'm not even talking about most doctors. I'm talking about doctors who don't look into their patients complaints beyond a general physical because they didn't believe them to begin with. I hope that clarifies things. But I feel I'm beating the subject to death so lets move on. If you wish to continue to discuss it you can PM me.