Near the end of the Dr. Phil Show on gender identity, two guests who were not on stage provided a mini-introduction to the controversy of using hormones to delay puberty. Dr. Jo Olson and Dr. Eva Cwynar are two prominent doctors who work in the field of gender disorders and endocrinology. And action!
From the Dr. Phil website, here is a rough transcript of their comments.
Dr. Phil turns to two more medical professionals in the audience. Endocrinologist Dr. Eva Cwynar says parents need to wait and see what happens with puberty and not give in to their child’s fantasy of wanting to become the opposite sex. Dr. Jo Olson, pediatrician with the Transgender Clinic of Children’s Hospital Los Angeles, says children are born this way, and she helps kids make the transition through hormone therapy.
“Dr. Olson, at what point do you begin that?” Dr. Phil asks.
“It’s a different process for each child. It’s really important to recognize that young people and their families come in at very different stages of this process. Many of the people we see have actually already gone through puberty, but we do have some patients who are young, in the 12- to 16-year-old age range as well,” Dr. Olson says. “However, I want to say that we don’t just provide hormone therapy for young people, and not all young people who want to transition get hormones. We have a multi-disciplinary approach in our clinic, where they are assessed by a psychologist who is extremely familiar with gender-questioning youth, gender identity disorder and the issues that these young people face, as well as the case manager who understands what these young people go through. And hormones are not the end of the story for every young person.”
“And you work with the family members as well. It’s not just something you do to the child in isolation,” Dr. Phil says.
“Absolutely, and we have many parents who experience this same kind of mourning,” she says, referring to Toni.
“Dr. Cwynar, do you think there’s ever a point when hormone-blocking therapy is appropriate?” Dr. Phil asks.
“I do,” Dr. Cwynar says. “I think that, as everybody mentioned before, there’s a spectrum of this transgender, and I do believe as well that gender is a definition between the eyes and not between the legs, and that there are certain chemical phenomena, chromosomal phenomena, that occur both in utero and as we develop that make us appear as one sex, but is actually a different sex. I prefer waiting through puberty to see what actually happens when the hormones kick in. There are situations where you have distress and suicidal ideations and because of that, hopefully the family will be there for the child to help them get through that process. So, I like to see the whole adolescence be complete, essentially, before I do anything permanent.”
This is among the most controversial of issues and one with which I have had some professional involvement. I will give one example and then some links from past blog posts which address similar gender identity concerns.
Among several similar cases, I recall a family in conflict where the mother wanted to delay puberty for a GID child but the father did not. In short, the child now post-puberty is strongly identified with the biological gender. Delaying puberty would have been a mistake and the earlier wish to consider it vanished. Other cases are not so clear cut and hence the controversy.
Here are some relevant links to past posts:
-Two families, two approaches to gender preferences
-Gender identity disorder research: Q & A with Kenneth Zucker
-Ken Zucker compares ethnic identity conflict and gender identity conflict
-APA issues statement regarding GID and the DSM-V
-The Man Who Would Be Queen – Chapters 1 & 2
-American Psychological Association comments on DSM gender identity issue
-60 Minutes Science of Sexual Orientation: An update from the mother of twins
-60 Minutes Science of Sexual Orientation mother of twins, part 2 (this 2 part series is highly recommended)
@Mary:
I suspect gay people as a group are more creative but it is a reasonable question whether or not the creativity is intrinsically linked to their sexual preferences. Creativity may be linked to gender nonconformity or some other surviving trait and not to the preference for the same sex. The concept of social benefit is controversial anyway as evolutionary theory is most directly concerned with reproductive benefit.
I do think the left-handed stuff is fascinating in that left-handed and sexual preference might be connected to a third variable which might convey fitness.
I listen to a show called the Howard Stern Show. I’m not sure if they have that where you live.
—
The show has a regular guest naned Siobhan. Siobhan (formally Bill) was a married dad before he had surgery. Siobhan is now convinced that his former penis was actually a prolapsed vagina. I think he mentioned that a Dr. told him this which if true gives some illumination into the minds of Doctors involved in this field. When people bring up the fact that he has a daughter so his penis had to be a penis, not a prolapsed vagina it makes him angry and he rejects their logic.
Whoops… that was to Evan
Sometimes a fruit loop, is just a fruit loop.
Evan, are you going to stand on the idea that your grandparents or cowboys or farmers did not benefit AT ALL from the contribution of homosexuals? Are you really going to say that?
It doesn’t have to be a 100% rule to be beneficial. Say it’s like 20% more likely the individual will be ‘creative’ if they’re gay. Over time,that’s a much larger amount of creative people, even if they are by no means any sort of majority once you roll it out over thousands or millions of years.
Warren,
It’s not about those directly related to the homosexual. Consider the wiodw, childless woman or man who commits time and money to non-profit charities. Yes, so do heterosexuals.
You might be right. He quotes a 1974 study by Laub and Fisk (A rehabilitation program for gender dysphoria syndrome by surgical sex change. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, 53, 388-403.) to support his statements, but the study is nowhere to be found.
Drowssap,
I do take offense that your theory that having children is the biggest and greatest contribution a person can make to mankind.
We disagree.
Aaaannnnnd, you are back tracking on earlier posts and threads. Just saying your contradicting yourself and now back tracking. That’s all I was pointing out.
And I will always disagree that having children it the greatest thing a person can do for mankind.
My main issue is not so much with his conclusions, but with how rocksolid they are. He’s just like Nicolosi, there are only TWO ways transsexuality happens. He also is of the belief that bisexuality does not exist. When I confronted him in person on a blog, with the fact I am bisexual, he just literally told me I was lying or still confused.
I know Howard Stern. I only saw him once in a music video, but I’ve heard he’s shockingly funny.
Man, that’s weird. Siobhan looks big boned and able to land a hefty punch.
To those who may think that homosexuality has evolved as a strategy which helps society in ways other than in reproductive fitness, these are quotes and sources that I can offer from an expert in evolution. I will also point out to those who think that evolution is incredibly slow…read the new book coming out by Cochran and Harpending. Furthermore, to those who think that evolution is only important when one looks at the whole of homo sapiens, I have used bold print for an important sentence from Cochran, and I will add that the point is not just his belief, but the belief of others in the field.
From Greg Cochran, evolutionary biologist….
[FOLLOWING APPARENTLY ABOUT IDEA THAT GAY MALES ARE HELPERS
AT THE NEST]
The rest of this article can be found at:
http://web.archive.org/web/20040201220737/http://harpend.dsl.xmission.com/harpending/1201/cochran.homosexuality.rants.pdf
And, from an interview with Cochran is this:
The rest of that interview can be found at
http://web.archive.org/web/20050305131514/http://thrasymachus.typepad.com/thras/2005/02/cochran_intervi.html
These are articles and interviews that are a few years old. Since then, the Ewald-Cochran theories have yielded great fruit in the field of biology and their positions that the blood-brain barrier, once thought to protect the brain from bacteria, toxins, viruses, is much more vulnerable than ever have been upheld by research. Whatever you think of their gay germ theory, you can’t find those who would dispute that Ewald, Cochran, and Harpending are leaders in their fields.
For those interested in evolution, the brand new book by Henry Harpending and Greg Cochran, The 10,000 Year Explosion, is now available at Amazon. Its major premise is that over the last 10,000 years, evolution has sped up to rates we once never imagined.
Yes, he is blunt, but it was an informal interview on a blog. There are other sources I can provide if you’d like, but I think I may already have given them on another thread.
Mary,
Having kids is not the be all and end all of human existence, but it is to evolution. The weird thing is the less naive a person is about genders (ie, mixing some of the characteristics of the opposite sex with their own) the less likely they are to reproduce. Sex-atypicality and gender-bending lead to a dead end in evolutionary terms. Finding out what causes them can throw light on what makes women women and men men. That’s like the issue of the century. Anyone is interested in why men and women are different and why are they different within their own gender group.
I think people are talking past each other here.
From an evolutionary biology point of view – we are breeders – that is our purpose. The view of what our purpose is from an evolutionary biology POV isn’t exactly a noble one – we are simple like cattle – breeding to continue the species.
From a societal point of view of view we are simply much more than this – or even not this at all.
The problem comes when you try to determine what has or hasn’t value in a society based solely on evolutionary biology. You then run smack into social Darwinism (and all its ugly conclusions).
As a gay man I do believe gay persons do contribute to society – and I would not like to see a world without gay people.
Of course others would like to see gay people eliminated ASAP.
You are still 100 miles from understanding the point. I’m afraid you just can’t reach some people.
Why would you talk with such disdane about having and raising children? You say that humans are like cattle because we have children… as opposed to what other species?
Probably some farmers and cowboys were homosexual, but they didn’t contribute to the village artistically and scientifically. They just worked the land and tended their cattle. There are no facts on that, though. Neither are there any on special talents.
I am not saying from my own POV people are like cattle.
I am saying from an evolutionary POV we are like all other species – ie breeders.
From *this* perspective all life forms are judged on how well they breed.
You might find that upsetting – but that is our evolutionary biological purpose. This is why I said viewing things from a evolutionary biology POV is not a terribly noble one.
Of course this isn’t a problem to anyone who doesn’t derive all their values about what is and is not important solely from evolutionary theory.
At some point then we are like lemmings. When we over populate we will have to die off.
Also, the conclusion that breeding is the highest order and end all of being is sad.
I don’t think gay people or childless people are saying that people who have offspring are more or less contributing but saying that those of us who are without children are still valueable. Not more not less.
I can think of quite a few people who have had rotten children and they contributed nothing but a tax on everyone else. That’s not evolution. I can think of some gay people who have spent an enourmous amount of time and money contributing to the welfare and care of others – who without so doing – those people or their children would not exist.
LOL. Topics be damned!!!! I came home to approx. 50 new posts on the topic “should puberty be delayed” and not a single one was on that topic.
I’m not saying we can’t veer off topic once in awhile, take a little detour once in awhile but it defies the whole notion of subscribing to a topic when we go off on a tangent never to return.
Off to clean out the inbox….
Upsetting? I’ve been arguing that point for years.
Drowssap,
Cochran said that until someone could show him that left-handed people had fewer people than righties, he saw no connection between SSA and left-handedness.
My other comment is awaiting moderation.
Eddy, I am glad my puberty wasn’t delayed!!!!! (At least that is on-topic.)
Sorry, what I meant to say was “fewer children than righties….”
Mary said,
I
Absolutely agree with you, Mary. Of course one doesn’t have to have kids to contribute to society. What made me initially respond to you was your use of the word “evolution.” That is, evidently, where the miscommunication began.
From nature’s standpoint, sexual reproduction is a means to create new life so that that life can then produce a new life and so on and so on. If nature found a more efficient or more successful way to enable us to reproduce, in time, it would take shape.
I disagree with you Carole. Evolution takes all of us. Think of how many times some has saved you or one of your children. It really does take a village. Evolution may indeed have humans (as a social species) for protection, gathering and distribution of resources and for helping the population grow even though not everyone will reproduce – we nonethelss produce a great deal towards the evolution.
Perhaps – this taking shape is happening and others have failed to see it.
I am saying that life centers around the production of life. There are those who produce and for those who don’t, we assist.
You have to ask “Are the assistants so genetically mutated that evolution is sifting them out of the pool, or could it be that without assistance from others however minutely it MAY appear to someone with a breeding bias that humans would not be as well off today?”
Gotta wonder how easy it is for other to dismiss the contribution of gays and other childless people. Remember gay people have the ability to reproduce. Some have chosen not to do so.
Patrick said,
I thought I understood this statement; suddenly I wasn’t so sure.
Doesn’t what you say go w/out saying unless what you mean is that it is your gayness that is the characteristic making you a valuable contributor to society? If that is what you meant, that would be like my saying it is my trait of heterosexuality that is responsible for my contribution to humanity (even if I didn’t produce kids.) ???????????
Is that what you meant? Or did you mean that all people on this planet have worth?
Mary, no one disputes that members of a tribe or a town or a state or a nation or a planet contribute to the success of the larger whole, but you are completely ignoring evolutionary tenets. The math is crucial.
Mary, this is from an evolutionary biologist–Cochran. I included it a long post that is still awaiting moderation so maybe it’ll post here if I post part of it. I can’t argue the math with an expert.
[FOLLOWING APPARENTLY ABOUT IDEA THAT GAY MALES ARE HELPERS
AT THE NEST]
GC: This is only the umpteenth time I’ve run into particular mistake: to be fair, the others
weren’t in this forum. First, it is important to mention that nobody sees homosexual men
among hunter-gatherers, the groups whose way of life is thought to most closely resemble
the general evolutionary past of the human race.
Second, this idea that homosexual men somehow paid their evolutionary way by helping
others in the tribe raise children is bs[I edited this] because they don’t do any such thing in any
society. If they were something like worker bees, if helping others raise their kids were
their particular evolutionary strategy, they would have a strong impulse in that direction,
and they’d do it a lot. They would always have done it, they’d practically always _be_ doing
it. . It’d be as obvious as mother love – but it doesn’t exist.
Third, how on Earth would homosexuality help? Being neuter might – it works for bees, but
how is strong same-sex interest going to help anyone provide for kids in the tribe? It’s a
distraction, a time consuming distraction. Obviously, a guy who spent most of his time
investing in his sister’s kids and screwed the occasional interested chick would have a far
superior reproductive strategy. Homosexuality neither makes babies nor brings in the
bacon.
Fourth, it wouldn’t work if they _did_ do it: the relationship coefficients are wrong. In order
for a gene causing altruistic behavior ( behavior that costs the doer and benefits others) to
be favored by natural selection, it has to satisfy Hamilton’s inequality: sum of rb > c, r is the
relatedness coefficient, b is the benefit to the other individual, and c is the cost to the doer,
all measured in terms of fitness. Someone who has and raises two kids to maturity breaks
even, in a genetic sense. r is 0.5 for your own kid, 0.25 for a nephew or niece. In order for a
homosexual man to break even, he’d have to cause four more nephews/nieces to survive to
maturity than would have without his efforts; he has to be better at making kids grow up
than a mother – and, in order to fit our observations, must do so in a way that has never
been noticed by anyone. Those non-reproductive females among wolves are usually the
children of the male and female alphas. They are helping to raise their brothers and sisters
( where r = 0.5). When they get the chance, later in life, they breed. This is harder to do in
humans, because our childhood is so long. By the time that one grows, up, Mom’s
reproductive period is usually over. Anyhow, homosexual men don’t _do_ this: they don’t
hang around and help raise extra brothers and sisters. And if they did, how would
homosexuality help them do it?
Probabably the most important lesson learned in biology over the past 40 years is that
natural selection is strongest at the individual level and that behavior should be analyzed
keeping that in mind. This had not oozed much into the popular mind. Homosexual men
have a lot fewer children than average: that is a fact, and it is not exactly surprising. I think
that this nonsensical crap about the evolutionary ‘function’ of human homosexuality
originated with Jim Weinrich and was then uncritically mentioned by the notoriously numerically challanged E. O. Wilson in a book. Jim can’t count, but I can.
Carole you may present as much of someone else research as you like. I have nothing to present just my opinion. I disagree with your bias.
Still reading a lot of opinion and bias that is not backed up. Just assumptions (as mine are too) Nonetheless, I don’t agree with this researchers assumptions all the way.
Nor do I agree with his math (apparently having math means it’s correct math?) or the way he measures consequence or values items with less activity (less activity does not equate to less importance)
For example, take one chromosomal marker and protien strand and shift one item and you have a huge change in the outcome. Same could be said for human evolution and their social structure. There’s no proof either way – just a researcher who has applied various values based on how many times something occurs.
How many times does it take for one genetic change to enhance humans? Less than 1 in 10 million times. How many times does a non breeding human effect society – many. And still people are saying that breeding is the most important value? Breeding is obviously needed. So are other social attributes for humans to continue to survive. I doubt anyone can measure the smallest of actions that have changed our history significantly? You simply cannot say one is greater or more significant than the other. They are both needed for humans to continue. In fact, humans need to stop breeding so much as it is becoming a strain on world resources. That’s not evolution that’s dumb.
Look at his way of equating value, significance, and importance? He overlooks quite a bit based on many assumptions.
Mary,
It’s cool. I just thought it much better that I give you the words of an expert rather than my words, for I am no expert. I tend not to accept the everyman’s understanding of evolution any more than I accept the everyman’s understanding of the x’s and o’s of football. I’ll take the ideas and opinions of Bill Walsh or Vince Lombardi or Peyton Manning any day over that of a fan.
Now, if you told me you had studied evolutionary theory and physical and cultural anthropology and population genetics and Mendelian genetics and epigenetics and higher mathematics, then I’d be more than willing to give more credence to your opinion over his.
It doesn’t appear it’s my bias you disagree with as much as you are distrusting of those who are considered experts in the field. A healthy scepticism, even of experts, is never a bad thing. However, I will add that a summary dismissal of the ideas of an expert is never a good thing either. The best we can do is read extensively.
Mary, I’ve not seen any other expert in the field who argued his math.
Carole,
That’s cool. Do you have any math expereince or statistical exprience. I would not expect you to argue something you do not understand. However, it is easy enough for me to see some assumptions here.
Yes, I have studied SOME SocioBiology.
I’m not saying you must agree with me except on one thing – there is no evidence that I am wrong. There is one person who has different assumptions and he has made his calculations based on occurences as being the only activity given the highest value? That’s my critique of his work.
After awhile, other physicists did come and agrue against Einstein. And still many others have argued years over string theory. And still more on whether there are 10 or 11 dimensions etc… Not arguing against someone does not mean they are correct. Not having a degree in this field does not mean that my “theory” is invalid – not studied – but neither invalid. Nor does it mean that those who hold the view that homosexuality has little to do with human evolution are correct either.
Remember how long it has taken for people to begin looking at a germ association with mental wellness? A long time. And still there is resistance.
Not having the knowledge today does not mean it does not exist. Having a bias does not mean that one is correct either – you nor I.
Unfortunately, I did not pursue my education in this field. But I am certain someone will.
It’s not distrust per se – if you read and follow the snippet you provided – it is easy to see the assumptions. That’s just poor science and nothing more. I am not convinced to assume like you do that he was thorough and researched the subject matter in depth. He did do research. But that is not a final research or study.
Mary, I took “snippets” from blog interviews, not from his scientific papers.
As far as his credentials are concerned, you can look him up on PubMed Home, PNAS, biomedexperts, and you can google him all day and read his articles, or you can look up his books and order them. Along with him, I’d suggest the articles and books written by Paul Ewald, Richard Hamilton, Jason Hardy, William Trivers, etc. I have heard a NPR spot on-line with both Ewald and Cochran, and there is a YouTube with part of a lecture on the virulence of pathogens by Ewald–kind of fun, although no, it doesn’t deal with homosexuality. However, it is interesting because the study of how viruses and bacteria evolve show us how we evolve.
My math virtually stopped at high school trig, except for one college math class, and I’ll be the first to admit that the language center of my brain far exceeds the capabilities of the math section of said brain. I did minor in cultural anthropology, but that was ages ago. I had to take a lot of courses in physical anthropology to complete that minor. I do have a healthy scepticism, I think (anthropology, especially in those days will do that to you), but it is true that no person is w/out bias.
IIRC, Einstein came to understand that his equation might not answer everything, and yes, with quarks, there are problems as the observing of them changes their behavior. That doesn’t mean we throw out his work, does it?
I have a hard time understanding how you can dismiss the work of people who have made studying this their ife’s work and offer your own theories as if they were of equal weight, especially if you’ve not read their work nor the work of those who have reviewed them.
Sometimes I think it’s the word “theory” that results in this kind of thing, the high school biology teacher’s nightmare. Evolution is precise, and while we don’t know all we wish to know about it, for heaven’s sake, we don’t know all we wish to know about the universe or our solar system either, yet we do know that the formulas we use and the calculations the computers make must be precise in order to get our astronauts from that shuttle to the space station and then back down to earth safely, and we do know that someone w/out expert knowledge can’t be trusted to offer a decent theory of how to get them there and back safely.
I think Eddy pointed out that this thread has become about how homosexuality could survive rather than should puberty be delayed.
The evolutionary question is an interesting one which has provoked some research with mixed results. Some research shows mothers with gay relatives bear more children. Other research hoping to find that gays invest more in their families have not found that.
Unless, someone has additional data, research or links to a theoretical argument not mentioned, then I would like the thread to return to the topic of whether puberty delaying drugs are a good course for trans kids or should they experience adolescence first to see if GID persists.
At least let me comment?
Carole, just because Stanton, Nicolosis, or anyone else has studied something and provided research (as in your case with Cochran) does not mean that because my research is limited, that I have to accept it. That’s why people continuw to doubt and question those who put up some research and studies – and eventually we do learn more. Take for example, the virus’ role in gestation and placentas. We used to think that all viruses were bad for us. Oooops – turns out the specialist and those who have devoted their life to such reproductive knowledge were wrong.
You may insult me all you want for not bending to one person’s authority. Just like others, an instinct can make us ask questions and help us grow and develop. I believe that homosexuality has provided mankind with an evolutionary benefit/advantage. Time will tell. Funny though, how you question so many things and then use one research snippet as a foundation point (disregarding all of your doubts about other scientifc research on various subjects) and stand on one idea of one man. Can’t you afford me the same – that is to look somewhere else for answers and not be satisfied with the status quo?
You have to admit – the conclusions aren’t entirely there, yet.
Okay, Mary, I’ll end with your saying to me
Geez, I thought I made it very clear that I have sought to read more than one person on the subject of evolution (as well as on the subject of SSA). The “snippet” was for the purpose of an answer to a post. I can hardly quote entire articles and books.
Oh, and for their sake, please don’t accuse them of being a Nicolosi–they are scientists.
Carole,
Please let’s end this where Warren asked us to? What criteria is used for science, research, evaluation, statistical models, etc… are defined differently by different people. As we can see that flurries of arguments surround all kinds of research (notice you did not mention Stanton to criticise)
I never argued that I was right based on research, I never provided research, I did criticise the research you provided (you did not counter that criticism except to say you don’t get math and stas or something like that), etc….
I said offer me the same consideration to opine differently and that no final conclusion on the matter was offered. That is a polite way of saying your “proof” did not persuade me. I am sorry you did not understand my criticism of his work.
Having said that, does not mean that I am wrong or right.
I gave an opinion, backed up why my opinion is still valid and you have rejected it. Fair enough?
I don’t know who Stanton is; I will, however, read him. Nicolosi I have read. Stanton, I have not. I choose not to discount someone’s ideas/research if I’ve not read him or her extensively.