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)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Mary, I’ve not seen any other expert in the field who argued his math.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
Sorry, what I meant to say was “fewer children than righties….”
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.)
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….
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.
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.
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?
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.
Upsetting? I’ve been arguing that point for years.
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.
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.
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.
You are still 100 miles from understanding the point. I’m afraid you just can’t reach some people. 😎
@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.
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.
Mary
It isn’t that homosexuals don’t contribute. They problem is that they have to contribute significantly MORE than heterosexuals to make up for the fact they have fewer children on average. It’s simple arithmetic. In a world of constant change that trait with all it’s theoretical pluses and minuses could never find a balancing point that would last for long.
Pathia,
There are no facts on this issue yet, but I’ve seen one researcher writing about transsexualism and interests as follows:
And Bailey’s observations are based off of some gay bars in his downtown district.
That book is junk science, there are no actual studies. He based his work off of Blanchard, who studied his own patients. If you were not a classic type 1 or a type 2, Blanchard wouldn’t treat you…so of course he’s only going to see those two types.
Please find a real source.
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.
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 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.
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.
@Mary: You would need to provide some support for the facts you assume for this theory to be taken seriously.
The one study I have seen on this topic found that gays do not contribute money or resources any more than non-gays to their related children (nieces, nephews) and do not live any closer to them than non-gay Uncles/Aunts.
Warren,
I would image they certainly do not in today’s society. My brothers want me to be nowhere near my nieces and nephews. You can’t give when it’s not wanted.
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.
Evan,
In addition, your grandparents may have been hicks who were uninterested in art (unlike most of humanity throughout history) but they did benefit from others who did/do have an interest. We do not live in caves isolated from whole communities of other people. Shared technology, art, science while it doesn not interest someone directly (say the welfare mother who is raising three children and one of them now has an severe case of the flu) she will benefit from some research or knowledge contribution that some homosexual has made to the community or society in this lifetime or a generation or several generations prior.
I agree, but so would a great many straight doctors, researchers, thinkers. That’s the problem — there’s no evidence of a link between sexual orientation and talents.
Evan,
You are kidding that a technologically absent society is better off that way? Being ignorant is also a good way to die of polluted water, lack of medical care, over stressed earth and farming soil..??? My bet is your grandparents remember the dust bowl, medicine without penicillin, unsterile operating rooms and women and infants having a higher mortality rate, loss of teeth and nutrition because of poor oral hygiene etc… Mmmmm huh.
Do you really know the expereince of your grandparents or do you romanticize the old days?
I know for a fact because I lived a few years in their house when I was a boy. There was plenty of stuff we never knew we needed until we got it. Sure, a technological society is a bit better but that came about only recently on a mass scale. What happened until then with so many sexual orientations around? What about so many straight doctors, scientists, etc? Were they in denial?
Evan,
But cowboys did know what a gatling gun was??? Please see DiVinci’s war inventions?
Please see his drawings of muscular and veinal attributes of the human body and while you are at it – tell the Wright Brothers about the flying machine that came before them? Very similar.
So… you see there is a connection.
I suppose you could say that, if he was homosexual as a fact. It’s all based on rumours. Many of the talented people during his time invented lots of things that do not get much press today. He was not the greatest engineer of his time, he was one of the many employed by royal courts to develop war machines. I’m sure few would consider today engineering war machines a work of progress. He was a very peculiar guy with a large array of interests, some of which brought him success and created a halo effect on all of his works.
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?
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.
@Evan
I think they lived fine until old age without much science or art around them. Probably many people on the planet did the same thing and still do.
So because it does not better 100% of the world 100% of the time, it’s a complete failure and cannot be true? Now you seem to be stretching things.
No, I’m not saying this. I’m sure people in the country were not strangers to homosexuality. But they managed without science and art for many centuries, which runs against the argument that some sexual orientations bring some special benefits.
Mary said to Drowssap,
Are they “more creative, sensitive”? Do we really know this? If so, is it in their biology or is it a result of socialization? Do we have research verification , an agreement among biologists that homosexuality and those traits you mention are correlated more than they are with heterosexuality? True, I have heard lay people say things like, “Look what the world would have missed w/out a Michaelangelo or Leonardo, but I wonder…would such artists have been just as successful and creative had they been heterosexual? If so or if not, how do we measure?
Mary said to Drowssap,
How so, Mary? What do homosexuals pass to their progeny that “benefit[s] human evolution?” And, how are those traits (if they exist at all) heritable if they don’t result in heritable behavior?
How so, Mary? What do homosexuals pass to their progeny that “benefit[s] human evolution?” And, how are those traits (if they exist at all) heritable if they don’t result in heritable behavior
I’d say the works of Michaelangelo and Leonardo have done a considerable amount of more for society than just one cohort of their time that had a few kids.
Genetics aren’t everything. Anything that benefits society, benefits all children growing up in that time period and those after on.
While I appreciate your point, Pathia, it answers neither question I posed to Mary.
One, there is no substantiation that those two artists would not have left behind their artistry had they been heterosexual. Two, “evolution” is a biological term–and so far evolution has not been able to explain how behaviors that have a huge fitness cost can pass along heritable traits. Thus, they don’t believe it is heritable, don’t believe it is a product of evolution at all. Drowssap is right. The math is pretty convincing.
Genetics don’t necessarily ever make sense. There’s little rhyme or reason to many traits that pass down in the short term, only over millions of years will they make more sense and even then it’s not always clear.
Like, why can’t humans make vitamin C? There must be some reason, most other animals do, but all it does is hinder us and make us prone to scurvy.
That’s dubious too. Most, though not all, people who are interested in art have some affinity of mind with the artist. One could say that both creator and his public are the product of similar biologies. Michelangelo and company don’t mean much to hard-working cowboys. They’re doing fine without them.
Considering Leonardo’s impact on science, just because they don’t know the name, doesn’t mean they haven’t been bettered by his existence in the past. Just because some people are ignorant of an individual doesn’t somehow erase their effects.
Could be. I’m not taking a position on it. My grandparents lived in a village, worked the land all day and came home tired and hungry. Sometimes they listened to the radio and watched some news on the TV, but when they were young they had neither electricity nor any of those appliances. I think they lived fine until old age without much science or art around them. Probably many people on the planet did the same thing and still do.
Pathia,
If you read my past post on this subject – I think you will find that I agree with what you are saying.
We don’t know everything Carole. I was only really remarking that Drowpass said that left handedness had an evolutionary benefit to humans (and he listed some of those attributes) which in earlier post on other threads he denies about homosexuals.
Just saying… he contradicted himself. And I found it totally laughable.
My position is that homosexuals who do not procreate still contribute to the strength and well being of the community (and therefore evolution of humans) by providing resources of food, child care/protection/education etc… and other ancillary roles without straining the resources needed for extra children (that they do not produce)
Mary
—
In order for natural selection to make sense you need a very basic understanding of mathematics. You don’t need to learn differential equations. Probably 8th grade math is good enough. But without that you are never going to get it.
Then Pathia, consider yourself one person who can do a ton of good.
As for your family of origin – screw them. They are mindless followers. The most dangerous kind of person I know.
I could never do such a thing. I still love them dearly. They are just misguided.
Mary
A Vast Left-Handed Conspiracy
Obama and McCain are both lefties. During the 1992 election Perot, Clinton and George Bush were all lefties. In fact since WW2 6 of 12 presidents have been left handed. That’s way higher than statistical chance. Clearly being left handed offers some sort of advantage.
Drowssap,
Left handedness has an evolutionary benefit but homosexuality offers none?
No you are contradicting yourself.
If homosexuality or transexuality offer an evolutionary benefit (and who knows, maybe they do) nobody has proposed a benefit that makes mathematical sense yet.
Do you have a quote or docuementation for the mathematical sense of left handedness??
C’mon. Stop the BS Drowssap.
American Psychological Assocation: Advantages of left handedness explored
According to brain science that means Einstein was homosexual. That’s hard to believe. Maybe brain symmetry (or handedness) has nothing to do with sexual orientation.
From the above linke
—
Lefties also have an advantage in a fight because they swing from the opposite side.
And somehow you have skipped over the fact that homosexuals are more creative, sensitive and ALL of their contributions to art, sciene, society etc…?
Really, you’re making me laugh at how unwilling you are to look at gay people as providing benefit to human evolution.
BTW, think of those gay people that are left handed.
Pathia: Mary
Left handedness probably couldn’t exist around the world if it didn’t offer evolutionary benefits. I have no doubt that lefties have certain advantages over righties. The reason that handedness is interesting is because the mechanism that creates it is very touchy. Anything that interferes with brain development has a good chance of altering handedness. Half of all premature babies are left handed, kids that get sick are more likely to become left handed. Left handedness is not the problem, it’s a data point that shows something happened to the brain.
—
Being short is the same thing. There is nothing wrong with being short, a lot of people are naturally short. But for example if Autistic kids were an inch shorter than average thats evidence of developmental problems.
@Mary
Sort of like knowing that others colors exist only because we can see them in cotrast to eachother. Not that red is better than blue or anything like that.
Yea…I’m SURE that’s what it’s going to be used for. Sorry, I’m way too cynical. Womb injections to cure homosexuality/transsexuality will be created as soon as they figure this out.
You don’t have to worry about womb injections to cure homosexuality. The FDA would never, ever let that happen. Screwing with hormones in the womb environment would be completely, utterly dangerous.
Ummmm… do you the know the researchers and their politics? Are they pro gay or anti-gay? Do the belong to a eugenics group?
You may be cynical but sounds like a generalized cynicism based of you childhood experience.
BTW, you did hear Obama’s speech yesterday? He addressed gays and straights specifically. Things have changed.
They have? Why are we having this discussion then. Why do Nicolosi and company even get publicity? People still worship the ground they walk on and swear that they’re 100% right.
I run into someone who thinks I’m a filthy disgusting freak at least once a day. I have people who refuse to make eye contact with me once they know, I have people who refuse to serve me food or work with me, or even treat me in the ER or distribute me medicine. These have all happened in just the past 12months.
If they’re changing, I certainly don’t see it anywhere.
Pathia,
There are always going to be people who are disgusted with others for many reasons -people who have deformities ( or such) that are noticeable or not.
And there are people who look in awe to NARTH. But not everyone. And Nicolosi is just one person.
One person who is believed by everyone in my family. My family has since converted from pencostal to Catholicism and I believe Nicolosi is Catholic? Either way, they believe everything he says is 100% true.
Nicolosi is more or less directly responsible for me being unable to speak to most of my family. Until he’s wholly discredited and his theories thrown out, I don’t know if I can ever see anyone again.
One person can do a TON of damage.
Evan said,
1. Thanks, but what I meant was the site saysm “This study was completed, ” yet I can’t find the results.
2. Cochran meant that Blanchard had asked some researchers (and that is what I was wondering–if the people researching this study by the NCI (Clnical Trial NCT00001294) were the ones who refused to answer Blanchard’s request to reveal HLA types. The idea is that narcolepsy tends to strike people of a certain HLA type much more frequently than it strikes others and Cochran and others wanted HLA numbers on SSA people in a research study, but were refused those numbers.
The history record for that project says last year they were still working on protocols and recruitment. The study might be finished, but the paper might be in the process of being reviewed and revised.
Thanks, Evan. Somehow I never managed to get to the history link. I was curious about the results of the HLA typing. I wondered if the Sanders study not only collected DNA samples but also did HLA typing, but then I realized one needs blood for such typing, and IIRC Sanders’ subjects were allowed to provide samples with only saliva if they wished.
All right. I admit it. I am lost, Evan. What has that pic on the cover of People Mag to do with the topic? She doesn’t have eyes looking outward or inward, does she? Also, would someone please look at the post I put up on the old thread “Studies examine brain differences related to….” Thanks.
Nevermind. She has misaligned eyes but her eyes are straight-looking.
I saw your reply. Blanchard never published on any of the keywords referenced in the linked research projects. He did link sexual orientation with some patterns in birth order, birth weight, handedness and proposed that same-sex orientation could be caused by immune factors. One correlation on that was provided by Lee Ellis and folks. The implications for this debate are manifold (HLA and pheromones, PANDAS & psychological disorders with a possible bearing on sexuality that Warren T suggested here, prenatal hormonal imbalance caused by maternal immune response, etc etc). Haven’t seen that specific study, though.
Shannon Doherty is crazy but she is a knockout. Her picture on the beach is WOW! But then I noticed she had a tattoo on her ankle. Any tattoos, piercings, plastic boobs, etc…. any of that and the deal is off. 😎
Carole
Another recent marker they found
Mayo Clinic: Eye Divergence Triples Mental Illness Risk
Video link and story
That looks like triple risk to me.
Evan your link is dead. 8-(
BTW, I don’t think diverged eyes actually cause mental illness. They are an indication that something didn’t go together correctly during development.
😐 Too bad. SHe looked so cute in those pictures.
Wait… now the link works. 😎
OK. Here’s one from back in the wild days.
The doctor on the video mentioned that eyes that are crossed don’t correlate with mental illness but eyes that point out raise the odds by 300%. If the illness was due to stress or emotional trauma both groups would have had increased rates of mental illness.
This might be the same study Drowssap offered–the name of one of the researchers is on both. For a long time, studies have shown that infection at a certain age leads in a small percentage of children to left-handedness. Of course, this has just made them wonder if pre-natal infections and/or trauma of any kind as well as post-natal ones might be operating and if the left-handedness of some kids is suggestive of an event that brought about a re-organization of part of the brain. The left-handedness is viewed as just one of many results that might occur from such infections/trauma.
http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=17981716
Right on! That’s the original study.
This is the sort of stuff they look for, probably a lot of other stuff too
A) Short stature
B) Lower intelligence
C) Odd or misaligned physical or facial features
D) Increased incidence of left-handedness
Childhood bacterial meningitis infection causes pathological left-handedness
From chapter 2.2
—
I’m not a scientist but I think what this study says is that the younger a kid is and the more severe his infection is the more likely he will become left handed.
Is there anything newer? All those papers are 8years old or so. Anything new seems to show about a 20% chance of left handedness in both FTM and MTF’s.
I’m not sure about transexuals. But for a long time even up until recently somebody would do a study on left handedness and gay people almost every year.
Considering they seem completely unrelated conditions, I’m not entirely sure how left-handedness would show anything. Unless whatever is going ‘wrong’ is something of a bomb or a shotgun level of effects. Transsexuals can be straight/gay/bi/*.* it’s not really related to orientation. Most gays don’t even really seem to consider them part of their ‘group’. The worst discrimination I’ve ever experienced was done by radical gay men and women.
A study is not about determing that something is wrong but different. Left handed people have areas of the brain that dominate in ways that right handed people do not. It helps in discovering be comparing.
Sort of like knowing that others colors exist only because we can see them in cotrast to eachother. Not that red is better than blue or anything like that.
Most transsexuals are left-handed, says researcher
This is linked from a transexual rights website. Normally about 10% of the population is left handed. According to this more than 50% are left handed. That’s roughly the same percent of the population who is left handed after a severe, meningitis infection during infancy. That’s a pretty big deal.
I’d like to see the sampling on that, it’s not something I look for exactly, but…I know quite a few trans folk, I live in a collective of them so to speak (because it’s so hard to get a real job) and none of us our left handed.
Most transsexuals are left-handed, says researcher
I think this is a link to the original story. If you google left-handed transexual there is other stuff out there that shows essentially the same thing. Transexuals are significantly more likely to be left handed. That strongly suggests that something happened in the womb or during very early childhood. What that is nobody knows.
I wonder if it holds across all countries, most of the media seems UK based. I actually did a round count of all my social network friends who happen to be trans this weekend(Quite a few). We had twenty five right handers and three left, which seems pretty close to the normal average.
Handedness is not a learned behavior in 99% of cases. I doubt if it changes significantly around the globe. Every study I’ve ever seen found that gay people were more likely to be left handed. For a while it looked like one of these came out every year. I’m not sure why the kept looking because they kept finding the same thing. Anyway a quick google search shows the same phenomenon for transexuals but evidently more pronounced. I saw one where 20% of transexuals were left handed and another where 50% were. Whatever the true percent is it’s going to be significantly elevated.
Is everybody getting the same thing I am on this thread? The posts aren’t appearing sequentially. I’ve got some from the the 15th, then some from the 16th, then back to the 15th, back to the 16th. I’m confused!!!!!
The notion of chemically delaying puberty to address a problem whose origins we do not know–frightening!!!
“Look, kid, I don’t know how you got the notions you have but both your parents and myself find them unacceptable therefore we’ve decided we have the right to mess with whatever natural sexual chemistry you have in the untested hope that it will straighten you out.” Child abuse with a professional license!
What if a parent came in and said…
—
Doctors wouldn’t do it in a million years.
Parents do do this and doctors did it for girls for decades. They still do it if a family is concerned enough. Sort of the reverse though
If a girl looks to be growing taller than 6′ they will give them a massive dose of estrogen to terminate their puberty early so they don’t have the stigma of being a overly tall woman.
yeah Drowssap – Pathia is right on in what she says and it goes back to our discussion about parents “doing everything they can for their children”.
If my child had a health problem I can understand using hormones to help correct it. But using hormones to increase athletic ability or decrease/increase height… I’m not down with that. That’s where I would draw the line.
Lynn David
Maybe you’ve seen this link before but in case you haven’t.
Flies get ‘mind-control sex swap’
Cool story with lots of videos.
Lynn David
This stuff is fascinating. It doesn’t take massive brain surgery to turn a male into a female, just the flip of a switch.
When Minnie Turns Mickey
—
They’ve done this extensively in fruit flies and now mice. No doubt larger animals soon and eventually humans.
Behaving like a male does not make a mammal or insect a male.
Exactly and the same goes for humans.
I’ll take one too Lynn 😉
I know I want my subscription….
I think I want my dolly….
LOL – Drowssap – Fruit Flies are so far removed from humans when it comes to behaviors.
Yeah, it’s that oops sorry that really scares me.
Twenty years from now when gender identity can be realigned with the body as easy as 1-2-3 what will the doctors tell these children who are now grown adults? Oops… sorry.
—
Folks it’s not science fiction and it’s coming sooner than you might think.
In Fruit Flies, Homosexuality Is Biological But Not Hard-wired, Study Shows
With just one, ordinary chemical scientists can alter the sexual orientation of flies. They’ve already accomplished the same thing with gender.
I would as soon blow my brains as take any such cure.
So you think Insects are the same as Mammals?
They’ve done it with mice too. It’s amazing. One switch and a girl mouse “becomes” a boy mouse.
Come to think of it, switching smell preference might flip the bases of gender sense (and sexual orientation) too. It might be a “nose leads the eye” thing.
Supressing puberty??? I’m with you on that Drowssap. That’s physical abuse even when the child or parent is asking for it. We know so little about the effects of chemicals on the brain and brain development and quality of life issues surrounding those events.
Hit me! Hit me!
Okay – that goes over well.
Yeah, there is no way they should do that. I’m surprised that they can even do that legally.
Their effects and side effects are quite well known. Children have precocious puberties at times, they are the same drugs they use on those children. They’ve used them for decades and it’s been quite successful. They’ve been doing it Europe for children with GID alot longer than here and oddly enough, there are quite a few less trans murder/suicides there.
Where as here, in the states I have to deal with the fact I’ve had over fifteen friends commit suicide and six be brutally murdered in the street. Only two of which the police even bothered to investigate.
Pathia,
I’m not saying it could not help. But, and this is a very personal gripe of mine, the medical industry in this country has done atrocious acts on people in the name of science and really screwed up some lives.
I know your life has not been easy and you have experienced the cruelty of ‘helping” parents. But really it was the psycho crap that really screwed things up, the lying and witholding the truth about your birth – not the lack of puberty prevention.
It might have helped you put your parents on hold while you reached the age of majority when you could finally make decisions for yourself – but other than that… ? I hold on that we do not know enough , yet.
I do see your point, though.
SO it was perfectly fine for them to force testosterone therapy on me instead? Why is it OK to do one thing, and not another?
—
Complete mumbo-jumbo.
I believe that what happens in the entire Universe is a mirror reflection of what happens on planet Earth. You don’t need facts, I’m an expert, what are your credentials, sit down.
Boy did you get that one right. She is talking gibberish but because she has credentials she gets away with it.
Until not very long ago, doctors and scientists thought that anxiety creates gut problems, but in the last years they discovered it works both ways – gut disturbance can create anxiety too. Another dogma is losing ground: the brain is just a collection of sensory information that reacts to new data in a passive way, according to past patterns. It turns out the brain is always on and when the cortex wakes up it starts reacting to stimuli and deciding what to do with the new information (the cortex is not just a servant at the sensory&emotional brain’s table). So, the conscious part of the brain is a mind indeed.
Now people like this woman invited on the show as an expert talk about gender like they know what they’re talking about. “It’s in the brain” they say. What if they discover in 20 years that it’s in the nose? How are they going to keep their faces after influencing people to make questionable decisions based on poor knowledge on the subject? Here’s the dilemma: people who are transgendered wished they had better information back in their days to help them make the same decision (according to their present bias), but some parents and children might see this new info as a new type of option (does not fit gender stereotypes => switch gender). I have seen a few parents encouraging gender “specialness” in children, like a mother of boys who pampered the youngest (because she didn’t have a daughter), calling him by a girl’s name (say, Joanna instead of John). He didn’t have GID, grew up very shy and averse to parties but I think that kind of maternal attention was detrimental to him.
Yep, it could be in the nose, eyes, ears a combination or might just be a switch in the brain. Nobody knows and odds are good the answer will be a lot more interesting than most people might guess.
Yep, that pretty much sums up my opinion.
—
Whatever therapists do when an anorexic teenage girl threatens suicide if she doesn’t get gastric bypass that’s what they should do here. I don’t know what that is but I doubt surgeons would give her gastric bypass.
Personally I believe that delaying puberty with drugs is child abuse. Aren’t doctors supposed to “do no harm?”
—
It’s the same thing as giving an anorexic, 15 year old girls gastric bypass so she don’t commit suicide. That exact scenario is probably faced by counselors every single day.
If an anorexic girl doesn’t have gastric bypass surgery, it won’t interfere with her life after she’s of age and can decide medical issues on her own.
Puberty is permanent. There is no way to undo puberty. Once it starts, it cannot be undone. I was forced into a puberty, it wouldn’t have even happened had they not forced testosterone on me. That puberty that I never had and that was artificially and more importantly induced against my own will, has made me suffer drastic social isolation and homelessness. It has made it incredibly hard to pass. You can get all the plastic surgery you want, but you can’t undo the broadening of shoulders, increase of hand size, voice changes, height. None of those things can ever go away, period. All these things happened, against my will and just because some doctors told my parents that pumping me full of testosterone would suddenly make me straight.
Instead, it was the main source of my mutilation. I broke out in rashes and hives all over my body from the stress. I was put on lithium and simply deadened to the world instead. No one gave a damn what I thought.
Self-mutilation is a complex behavior that is common outside those who struggle with GID…
“Flooding” anxiety is likely the shared correllary for those who self-mutilate.
The doctors cited in this article may have a strict protocol for determining how and when to intervene with hormone suppressing medications…I doubt it is clearly defined, or if it is, that it is anything other than theoretically based.
Where suicidality and self-mutilation are the issues, why not use the protocols that are scientifically based and non-intrusive rather than unproven protocols.
Putting off challenges sometimes helps, but without a protocol of treatment that improves ego-functioning and anxiety management, it is just procrastination.
GID sufferers tend to self mutilate in a very particular way in particular areas.
Which is why delaying puberty rather then triggering the opposite puberty is a valid treatment option. You just have to stop the anti-puberty drugs and their puberty will resume. I don’t think puberty is what’s solving the problem, it’s the child getting to a more self actualized age. I think getting into highschool and socializing with peers, finding others ‘like you’ is what makes the gay children separate from the GID ones at this age, not the presence of testosterone or estrogen.
I would suspect that another decent point to draw a line is when kids start threatening to or actually pulling of self mutilation. I have scars all over myself in ‘that place’ and most of them are NOT from my intersex surgery as an infant.