Children's Hospital Boston Launches Sex Change Program For Kids

reply to post by Christian Voice


God has nothing to do with this. If you bring God into this you'll only convince these children that they were God's mistakes and you'll end up with a higher suicide rate.

But I'm sure you'd have no problem with these 'queers' dying off.

And BTW, the percentage of homosexuals hasn't increased or decreased. They've stayed the same, but the percentage of people who aren't ashamed of it and who have no reason to hide it has increased, which is a very good thing.

Originally posted by TheColdDragon
reply to post by centurion1211

 

I think you've grossly misjudged my age based off of your words, as well as my "Worldly experience", but hey, if you want to marginalize people you're talking to I won't bother trying to rebut anything you say.

I doubt it. Have your mom U2U me with your real age. And re-read your own posts to find out who is "marginalizing" who. Anyone that disagrees with you is some misguided Christian according to what YOU wrote.

If you want to be an adult and actually have a conversation, I'd be much obliged to see if you're honest enough to state what you feel about it without couching it within protectionism (As if you're looking out for the world's children).

Nice try. Let me know when you can speak as an adult from the experience of actually being one. It's pretty easy to spot a student on these boards.

There's a reason you respond the way you do, and it has nothing to do with other people, other people's children, children you don't know and have never met or wanting to protect children.

The same is true for all the others present who are voicing their moral outrage.

Caught again accusing others while actually doing it yourself.

I dislike disingenuous responses, particularly when people don't even realize that is what they are doing.

Keep it up. They're, no doubt, placing your picture next to the words disingenous and possibly hypocrite in the dictionary as we type.

How tedious. Getting ready to press the ignore button ...

reply to post by Rasobasi420


God has nothing to do with his creation?! Is that what you are saying? Is there anything that you do think is wrong? So far everything I've seen you post suggests that nothing is wrong at all as long as all parties involved are willing.
A prepuberty child or even a child in the middle of puberty and afterwards is completely unable to make a rational decision about something like this and it should not even be a choice offered to them.

reply to post by Christian Voice


Yes. God has nothing to do with creation. Bring me some proof, and I will gladly refute my case.

I don't really see where the dilemma is in all this... especially in this country. I mean the Jews and the Christians, in the US at least, are known for mutilating newborn baby boys as a matter of tradition. So it's OK for the parents to cause direct and irreversible harm to their child and cut off a part of his body that God supposedly gave him, but it's not OK for the parents to prevent harm and a life of anguish and suffering due that same god's incompetence?

Yeesh... where's a lion when you need one. Hey Centurion... got a minute?

The world keeps getting stranger. Most of these kids would be fine if the parents let nature take its course.

Originally posted by xmotex
If you had actually read the article you'd know there was no surgery being performed.

I read it.

The fact is ... the next step after drugs is surgery.
They've mutilated their bodies with drugs .. then comes the surgery.

I'll rephrase for you.

The kids are too young to make decisions that will mutilate their bodies and that can't be changed. Be it through drugs .. or the surgery that is bound to follow the drugs.

I understand about 'suicide rates', etc etc. But a 13 year old can wait a few years before taking drugs and/or having surgery that they can't undo.

Originally posted by apc

Yeesh... where's a lion when you need one. Hey Centurion... got a minute?

Since, no one seems to have the cojones to answer my questions/concerns, yeah I might have a minute. What's up?

Oh, and concerning your avatar name, after reading many of your posts, I've come to the conclusion that you're no capitalist ...

Insanity...pure unadulterated lunacy.


The medical field has run amuck, and this is the height of doctor/patient irresponsibility. The mere notion that a ten year old is capable of making such critical, life long decisions is preposterous and to perform such a procedure would be the definition of malpractice.

Why is it that with every day that passes I get the pressing notion that the entire damn world has lost it's damn mind? Pure madness.

[edit on 4/21/08 by BlackOps719]

Originally posted by centurion1211
Since, no one seems to have the cojones to answer my questions/concerns, yeah I might have a minute. What's up?

I thought I have addressed some of your concerns but they largely seem to stem from the extreme "what-ifs." I'd rather focus on the here and now. And now, there are people, little people, experiencing horrible problems that have shown to preclude sexual identity conflicts. I don't have a stack of histories in front of me but I reason people who decide to have sex change operations as an adult typically report the same problems in their past that are being seen in these patients today. Kids who engage in self mutilation... they ain't right in the head. This treatment seems to have success in fixing that. If the shoe fits...

>
note that's not to say all kids who experience these symptoms are to be immediately diagnosed as having sexual identity issues and then treated. But you get the idea... I think.


[edit on 21-4-2008 by apc]

Phillip Morris started this thread, had to. They are making a fortune off my now-2-carton-a-day habit...

I just got back and read all the responses since this thread started. I am amazed at how uninformed or purposely lacking in foresight some people are.

I have heard several arguments for this treatment. Firstly, let me address the concept that children should be able to have the freedom of choice. I am assuming that no one who has advanced this concept has children (and probably ARE children), or if they do have children, those children are rarely at home and spending any time with the parents. From www.lpfch.org... :

I do not see how anyone who has actually raised children can possibly think a child has the foresight and mental maturity to make an informed decision that must affect the rest of their life. There is a reason children cannot drive, vote, buy a gun (even handle a pocketknife in a store here), sign a contract, drink... the list goes on forever. The reason is that children do not have the experience in life, the maturity, or the understanding of consequences to make an informed decision. Allowing parents to make the decisions for their children is not some hate-filled conspiracy to force children to conform to society; it is a responsible approach to allowing children to mature under the guidance of those who (should) care the most about their well-being.

For those who say there is no difference between boys and girls until puberty, sorry, but you are totally wrong. Puberty is a stage where sexual feelings intensify. Many children have sexual responses before puberty, but they are rare and usually confusing to the child. Puberty is also the point of the beginning of reproductive ability. But brain chemistry (and therefore behavior) begins having an effect much earlier. From thinkingmeat.com... :

For those who insist that it's not surgery, you're right. It's hormonal therapy, designed to make someone who is deemed to be female mentally 'feel' female, despite having a male body (or vice versa). It does not change the body! That will have to be done later, I am assuming when the child is old enough to consent to the surgery for legal reasons, but it will guarantee a patient at that point in time.

Which brings up my next point, concerning the 'conference' between the child, the parents/guardians, Dr. Spack, and a psychiatrist. The child, as already mentioned, does not have the foresight to make such a decision, and is probably going to go along with whatever the parents/guardians decide. The parents are obviously already concerned that something is 'wrong', and will no doubt be heavily influenced by the 'professionals' (and this indicates they have probably been told by other professionals that nothing is wrong, but didn't believe it). The psychiatrist is more than likely going to be one who is already affiliated with the Center. And Dr. Spack has a nice paycheck and a feather in his cap for being the first to practice such a procedure as incentive to convince everyone this is a good thing. To summarize, we have the incapable, the fearful and trusting, the loyal (to the Center) and the greedy, deciding whether or not to transfer huge sums of money to the greedy from the fearful and trusting, in order to attempt to 'fix' a child's sexuality before the child is probably even aware of the concept of sexuality.

This is so wrong in so many ways, and from what I see here, there are too many people who believe that destroying the foundations of our society are more important than the future of children. I am ashamed to be on the same board with some of you.

Now where did I put that carton of Marlboros...?

TheRedneck

Originally posted by TheRedneck
For those who say there is no difference between boys and girls until puberty, sorry, but you are totally wrong.

I think you're talking about me but like everyone else in opposition you have taken the kneejerk extreme and misinterpreted my statement. I tried to help those who had trouble with it in a previous post, but alas that may have failed. I'm guessing there's not much point in reiterating, so I won't.

But quit worrying about trying to save society and just leave society alone to figure itself out. As if society were an entity that needed saving. If a child's parents wish to make a medical decision in what is in their opinion the best interest of the child, let them. It's their call. Don't like it? When your son carves gouges in his arms and then tries to kill himself after you catch him wearing your daughter's underwear, and some doctor comes along and says your child has a known condition that is treatable... tell the doc to piss off - you're saving society.

reply to post by TheRedneck


Actually, I have a four year old and I'm well beyond my College years. I'll give you a star, Redneck, because at least your point of view is cogent and you are being honest concerning it. I disagree on parts, but that's neither here nor there.

I'm sorry that the opinions herein cause you such stress. To be honest, most religious views on a lot of these matters make me want to take UP smoking, but I know how bad it is for you.

Summing up what people on here are saying, they all feel that Children (They use the term frequently) are incapable of making these decisions, are too impressionable, and wouldn't know what they wanted so would do what their adult peer figures want them to do.

I would argue that any parent that forces their child to go through a sex change is not a good parent whatsoever... but only because of the force issue. I've known quite a few transgendered people, so it's a touchy subject for me, and earlier I had just knocked off of work and was rather tired so my temper was at it's most irritable.

There is also the fact that I'm a Singularitarian to be taken into account. Where Christian Voice is quite literally spewing religious hate concerning anyone who doesn't conform to God's will of Man or Woman, I see the problem as a bigger issue concerning technology down the line allowing people to imbue themselves with Animal or Custom DNA (And not just children, though that is where it will start).

The religious will always respond with intense hatred to such topics, because it scares the living crap out of them. They'll certainly put forward that this isn't the case, that GOD wills that it is wrong... which is only a raionalization of their own feelings, as well as a willful pressing upon others of the Self-Determination conspiracy.

I don't think ANY Of the Christians here would do this FOR any of their children or TO any of their children. That's all fine, they're you're children and you should try and do right by them when possible. I have no say in your raising of your children.

However, that isn't enough for any of them. They need to be able to control what other people do with their children. They need to convince every other person on the face of the earth that THEIR morals are superior, and that they need to be adopted because it is God's Will.

Despite all of this, Redneck, I do respect you for at least leaving some of the vitriol out of your own response. I realize things get heated in such topics, and as I stated in another thread, this is the perfect example of how views I espouse are considered monstrous by the Evangelicals.

reply to post by apc

If a child's parents wish to make a medical decision in what is in their opinion the best interest of the child, let them. It's their call.

Oh, so you advocate allowing doctors to manipulate information and scare concerned parents in order so they can make a 'rational' decision? How about some freedom of information here? How about someone posting a sign in Dr. Spack's office stating that a 10 y/o girl probably doesn't even understand what sexuality is yet. I would imagine you as one who would decry any attempt to allow parents to choose which church (if any) they take their children to, since it would be detrimental to the child's free choice. Yet you choose to allow warped individuals like this to openly take advantage of concerned parents all for the chance of ruining someone's life for a buck?

Give me a break. You're gonna have to do much better to make a valid point on this. Science is against you, morality (of any sort I know, anyway) is against you, and nature is against you. And, for your opinion, my kids are just fine, thank you.

TheRedneck

reply to post by TheColdDragon
I believe you must have misread my post, or perhaps you confused my point of view with earlier conversations we have had. Nowhere did I mention religion as any basis for my stance against this, although I am sure I could have easily done so. Yes, I am proud to proclaim my Christian faith, but this is not about religion. It is about simple right and wrong.

And I also did not comment about your age. Our earlier discussions have shown you to have some good points and a large degree of civility about you.

Summing up what people on here are saying, they all feel that Children (They use the term frequently) are incapable of making these decisions, are too impressionable, and wouldn't know what they wanted so would do what their adult peer figures want them to do.

Do you disagree with this, and on what basis? You state that you have a 4 y/o. Does he/she not look up to you for guidance and (usually) attempt to obey you?

I would argue that any parent that forces their child to go through a sex change is not a good parent whatsoever... but only because of the force issue. I've known quite a few transgendered people, so it's a touchy subject for me...

The part that concerns me is 'only because of the force issue'. I am concerned that this quack is going to harm children irreparably in order to make his name and get some money. The sanctity of life, not just of breathing and a beating heart, but of a full, free, and happy life, is not something to be sold for mere green paper. These children are going to be making a lifelong decision. The treatments may be reversible at first, as stated, but at some point they become permanent. Should one, just one, child be 'misdiagnosed' and given improper therapy, that child loses, completely, absolutely, and unconditionally. They will endure social trauma (kids can be cruel, sorry), the inability to have their own children, and quite probably severe psychological scars for the rest of their natural lives. Since you brought up religion, that sounds pretty much like dooming someone to hell.

As for adult transgender therapy, I will admit that I have a religious concern about that, but my religious rights end where another's rights begin. I have no right to deny any adult citizen the right to live their life as they see fit, within the bounds of proper law. A free citizen should be allowed to seek such therapy, and I should be allowed to say I think they're silly.

I don't think ANY Of the Christians here would do this FOR any of their children or TO any of their children. That's all fine, they're you're children and you should try and do right by them when possible. I have no say in your raising of your children.

However, that isn't enough for any of them. They need to be able to control what other people do with their children. They need to convince every other person on the face of the earth that THEIR morals are superior, and that they need to be adopted because it is God's Will.

Again, you attempt to interject my religion. I assume it's just habit.

As far as controlling what other people do. Is it out of reason to allow a 'mechanic' to charge people for fixing their cars, when his method of doing so is to pour sugar in the gas tank? That is fraud. What this doctor is attempting to do is completely refuted by any neural science in existence. So do we allow him to play around with children's sexuality when he is an obvious fraud? I say the ramifications are much greater here than in the first example, and therefore the need for restriction of the perpetrated fraud much more demanding.

Despite all of this, Redneck, I do respect you for at least leaving some of the vitriol out of your own response. I realize things get heated in such topics, and as I stated in another thread, this is the perfect example of how views I espouse are considered monstrous by the Evangelicals.

Oh, you would not believe how many times I retyped that post! It has literally made me smoke heavier than usual (although two cartons a day is a bit of an exaggeration). I despise anyone who would harm a child, especially for money.

Fair warning on this subject (for all): For me, this is personal, and I may have to change my handle to 'TheBulldog' before this thread is done...

TheRedneck

Originally posted by TheRedneck
I believe you must have misread my post, or perhaps you confused my point of view with earlier conversations we have had. Nowhere did I mention religion as any basis for my stance against this, although I am sure I could have easily done so. Yes, I am proud to proclaim my Christian faith, but this is not about religion. It is about simple right and wrong.

I didn't misread it... I was responding to both your post as well as other posts. Apologies for being unclear.

And I also did not comment about your age. Our earlier discussions have shown you to have some good points and a large degree of civility about you.

I perceived that you were commenting, as some others have, that my viewpoints were indicative of immaturity and that I must be some college kid or teenager to be having the opinions I have. I apologize if that was misperceived.

Do you disagree with this, and on what basis? You state that you have a 4 y/o. Does he/she not look up to you for guidance and (usually) attempt to obey you?

No, I don't necessarily disagree. However, I can guarantee you most parents would not be taking their children to see a doctor about gender reassignment unless they knew there to be a problem. Most parents err on the side of "It's a phase". While I'm open to the idea that there are parents out there that would decide they wanted a girl rather than a boy (Terrible, but people can be terrible), I'm fairly certain that this Doctor isn't going to be seeing kids that don't already have noticeable issues with gender identity.

The part that concerns me is 'only because of the force issue'. I am concerned that this quack is going to harm children irreparably in order to make his name and get some money. The sanctity of life, not just of breathing and a beating heart, but of a full, free, and happy life, is not something to be sold for mere green paper. These children are going to be making a lifelong decision. The treatments may be reversible at first, as stated, but at some point they become permanent. Should one, just one, child be 'misdiagnosed' and given improper therapy, that child loses, completely, absolutely, and unconditionally. They will endure social trauma (kids can be cruel, sorry), the inability to have their own children, and quite probably severe psychological scars for the rest of their natural lives. Since you brought up religion, that sounds pretty much like dooming someone to hell.

I respect this because you are both being honest about your fears concerning the doctor and your fears concerning harming the children, but you are also being cogent and fair in your concern.

In my view, while it may be a permanent decision at this point in time... I follow so much news on pluripotent cells and other such things as to be very doubtful that such decisions like this are going to be permanent in the long term.

Still, though, your concerns are valid. However, if the children have gender issues going through puberty and aren't given the option, they'll live through just as much hell as if they had to if they'd made such a mistake as choosing the wrong gender.

As for adult transgender therapy, I will admit that I have a religious concern about that, but my religious rights end where another's rights begin. I have no right to deny any adult citizen the right to live their life as they see fit, within the bounds of proper law. A free citizen should be allowed to seek such therapy, and I should be allowed to say I think they're silly.

Very bold of you to differentiate your views from others, a reason I respect your posts. While I recognize your concerns for the children, your views on right or wrong also don't extend to other people's children. I know you want to protect any child from harm, though.

Again, you attempt to interject my religion. I assume it's just habit.

No, this was again a point in my post where I was addressing some of the other posters positions... which is why I said "Many Christians Here".

As far as controlling what other people do. Is it out of reason to allow a 'mechanic' to charge people for fixing their cars, when his method of doing so is to pour sugar in the gas tank? That is fraud. What this doctor is attempting to do is completely refuted by any neural science in existence.

I'll have to politely disagree; I've done many years of research particularly into the topic of transgenderism. There is a lot of neural science that suggests such problems are apparent well before puberty in a majority of the cases.

So do we allow him to play around with children's sexuality when he is an obvious fraud? I say the ramifications are much greater here than in the first example, and therefore the need for restriction of the perpetrated fraud much more demanding.

Well, hopefully we trust the parents to make an informed choice, as parents are supposed to do. While I know the fear about quacks manipulating parents, it's the parents fault for allowing themselves to be manipulated rather than knowing their child.

Oh, you would not believe how many times I retyped that post! It has literally made me smoke heavier than usual (although two cartons a day is a bit of an exaggeration). I despise anyone who would harm a child, especially for money.

Fair warning on this subject (for all): For me, this is personal, and I may have to change my handle to 'TheBulldog' before this thread is done...

well, thank you for the consideration and patience in however many rewrites you had to go through.

reply to post by Master_Wii


This has got to be a joke or someones Idea of one anyway. There is no way society will stand for this. This is disgusting!!!! While I believe that adults (18 yrs +) can do what they want regarding this matter, to let a child decide or even worse to let the childs parents decide is so wrong in o many ways that I can't even begin to describe it.

reply to post by TheColdDragon
Perhaps there was some misinterpretation on both parts; you and I have recently engaged in religious-based discussions before, and I did see the number of references to religion and to your assumed 'immaturity' from other posters. I would like to take those issues out of our discussion, however, since they are certainly not relevant to our discussion on this particular topic.

And I have calmed down a bit (it's amazing what mainlining nicotine can do ), so I will also thank you for your understanding during my battle with high blood pressure.

As to the topic at hand:

However, I can guarantee you most parents would not be taking their children to see a doctor about gender reassignment unless they knew there to be a problem. Most parents err on the side of "It's a phase". While I'm open to the idea that there are parents out there that would decide they wanted a girl rather than a boy (Terrible, but people can be terrible), I'm fairly certain that this Doctor isn't going to be seeing kids that don't already have noticeable issues with gender identity.

Several issues here. While I can agree that 'most' parents would no doubt err on the side of caution here, I cannot say that all of them would. A great number would probably consider Dr. Spack as a professional who 'knows best', despite any misgivings they might have. We unfortunately live in a society where anyone with a degree is assumed to be right, no matter how absurd they may appear. And, as I mentioned earlier, the conferring opinion of a psychiatrist (who I still believe would be loyal to Dr. Spack) would serve to increase any impression of authoritative knowledge.

As to the parents wanting such an operation because of personal feelings, I would hope (to God Himself!) that the good quack would have enough sense to turn them away. Yes, I know such parents exist. Yes, I abhor it.

I do not, however, have the confidence in Dr. Spack that you profess. Our knowledge of the entire sexual subject is sorely limited at this point, and to open a clinic without much more research and testing is, in my opinion, telling of his motives.

However, if the children have gender issues going through puberty and aren't given the option, they'll live through just as much hell as if they had to if they'd made such a mistake as choosing the wrong gender.

I cannot speak to that, since I myself am not transgendered, but I can accept your idea as more than plausible. But if we are to choose whether a child is to be hurt by not receiving care for a condition, or hurt by receiving care for a condition they do not have, which one is more justified? The human appendix, when removed, causes no ill effects, but has the advantage of not being capable of becoming inflamed. Should we therefore not simply remove it whenever we have the chance? I say no, because some day we may discover that it does indeed have a side effect after removal, one that perhaps was so far removed from our expectations that it went unnoticed. The Hippocratic oath is "Do no harm".

If we leave the children alone until we are certain (to a large degree anyway) of the probable outcome of such treatment, or at the very least leave the treatment as wholly experimental and thus only used in the most severe cases and with massive overview, then we do no harm. Any harm that results is because of inaction, based on incomplete knowledge. If we damage an otherwise healthy child, say a boy who looks up to his sister so much he wants to be like her, then we have caused the harm. I consider this to be far and away the greater evil.

Opening a treatment center is not the way an experimental procedure is tested. It is the way an accepted procedure is performed.

While I recognize your concerns for the children, your views on right or wrong also don't extend to other people's children. I know you want to protect any child from harm, though.

If we were discussing a religious view, you would be correct. However, there are some things that must extend beyond religious borders. It is wrong to harm another for profit. It is wrong to do toward someone else in a way you would not want done to you. These are human universal truths, self-evident to borrow a phrase from a forgotten work.

I've done many years of research particularly into the topic of transgenderism. There is a lot of neural science that suggests such problems are apparent well before puberty in a majority of the cases.

As I mentioned earlier, the difference in the genders is in operation well before puberty, so I have to agree with you on this point. However, I know of no studies that indicate that such a condition can be treated before puberty, just as teeth cannot be straightened properly until a certain age. I also know of no absolute tests that be used to accurately determine whether or not such a situation even exists.

While I know the fear about quacks manipulating parents, it's the parents fault for allowing themselves to be manipulated rather than knowing their child.

Parental responsibility - what a concept. Of course, one I definitely subscribe to.

Yet, one could also say it is OK to open a torture chamber for parents to take their children to, and the parents should know better than to go to it. A stretch, but I think you see my point. The opening of a clinic for a procedure that is barely experimental is not proper, IMO. We have laws protecting children from all kinds of 'abuses', right down to some parents being afraid to discipline their own children. Why can we allow such a controversial/experimental procedure to be advertised this way?

It's late, and I have frankly exhausted myself. Time for bed, will answer any replies in the morning.

TheRedneck

Originally posted by TheRedneck
And I have calmed down a bit (it's amazing what mainlining nicotine can do

), so I will also thank you for your understanding during my battle with high blood pressure.

There is no thanks needed... it's a matter of personal responsibility as a human being to accept the difficulties of those you speak with if you want to have civil discourse.

Several issues here. While I can agree that 'most' parents would no doubt err on the side of caution here, I cannot say that all of them would.

I do not think this doctor will be going door to door looking for patients. My original point was that almost all the parents bringing their children in would be concerned over behavior or physical difficulties that concerned their children's gender... as such, the Doctor will be seeing children who likely do have a problem.

A great number would probably consider Dr. Spack as a professional who 'knows best', despite any misgivings they might have. We unfortunately live in a society where anyone with a degree is assumed to be right, no matter how absurd they may appear.

Partly true. I do not know Dr. Spack, but if he is a serious practitioner, then he is obligated to inform the parents of possible effects from such treatment and insure that they are in full understanding of the consequences, otherwise he opens himself to liability and medical malpractice.

Likewise, I do not know many parents that would encourage their children to go through with something like this. If anything, they would do everything in their power to prevent their child from making such a decision, mostly out of concern for consequences as well as fear that their child will be persecuted or hurt by others (A very valid concern, if you know much about the Transgender community).

Not that such parents don't exist. I do know there are some twisted people who are obsessed with having had a daughter or a son. A good friend of mine was mistreated and abused as a child because she wasn't a boy and her mother hated girls.

And, as I mentioned earlier, the conferring opinion of a psychiatrist (who I still believe would be loyal to Dr. Spack) would serve to increase any impression of authoritative knowledge.

Just as Dr. Spack would be responsible for a mistake in prognosis, so would the Psychiatrist. Any transgender sex reassignment has to be vetted by a Psychiatrist first... and they are also subject to medical malpractice.


I do not, however, have the confidence in Dr. Spack that you profess. Our knowledge of the entire sexual subject is sorely limited at this point, and to open a clinic without much more research and testing is, in my opinion, telling of his motives.

I cannot speak to that, since I myself am not transgendered, but I can accept your idea as more than plausible. But if we are to choose whether a child is to be hurt by not receiving care for a condition, or hurt by receiving care for a condition they do not have, which one is more justified?

Imagine you woke up as someone you didn't want to be. Imagine you were in spiritual pain every day you woke up. Imagine that persisting indefinitely. Making a mistake about what body you belong in is exactly as painful as being stuck in the wrong one.

If we leave the children alone until we are certain (to a large degree anyway) of the probable outcome of such treatment(...)

If you progressively saw your body decaying from some incurable disease, your skin turning scaly or some such... and knew it affected how everyone in the world looked at you and perceived you, would you not feel terrified of what was happening to you?

That is the feeling transgendered male-to-females feel when their voice starts changing, they start growing hair in places and whatnot. It's also the same feeling transgendered females-to-males feel. I think people are trivializing why it is important to transgendered people to start early... a boy who decides he is a girl can pass scrutiny without any fear if puberty never touched them. The longer puberty is allowed to persist for a transgendered person, the more psychological damage it does where concerns passing in the populace.

However, there are some things that must extend beyond religious borders.

I'll agree there are some very core mores that can be considered universal; do not murder and what have you.

I also know of no absolute tests that be used to accurately determine whether or not such a situation even exists.

Yes, that is rather problematic... the thing is, you can group people by type and you'd still have a huge amount of variety in the group. As such, even transgendered people have a wide range of variation in how transgendered they are. It is often why a psychiatrist is a requirement.

We have laws protecting children from all kinds of 'abuses', right down to some parents being afraid to discipline their own children. Why can we allow such a controversial/experimental procedure to be advertised this way?

I could equally ask why can we not allow children who need help to get the help they need? I recognize your fears about abuse of authority where concerns the doctor, but I also recognize that a lot of people I've known in my life would have had happier (and in some cases, LONGER) lives if such an option had been presented to them when they were as young as proposed here.

It is one thing to claim abhorrance to the sensibilities and culture of the day, it is another thing to realize that by eliminating the option you are ensuring that someone, somewhere gets murdered because some guys decide that the girl who looks too much like a dude needs to be murdered for hitting on their friend.

and it's happened. Do some research in the matter. I am all for caution and oversight for this hospital, and some level of scrutiny concerning their practices... but I am also for such hospitals existing to give options to people.

I would hope you would as well, if only to alleviate the suffering of people poorly misunderstood and feared.

I keep hearing things from people who have obviously not read the article, or only skimmed it to find what they're upset about.

From the OP article

The effects of these puberty-blocking drugs are reversible; that is, patients can later change their minds. Unfortunately, this is not the case with hormones. Therefore, Spack prescribes estrogen and testosterone to only a few teenagers - after months of consultation with the patient, his or her caregivers, and psychiatrists. When kids take this step, they are rewriting their own future: The hormones have a powerful, pervasive effect, changing their height, breast development, and the pitch of their voices.

The initial program is reversible. Then, only after an extended period of consultation with parents, the teenager AND their psychiatrist. That means it's not left only in Dr. Spack's hands, but also with an outside psychiatrist. There are many levels of redundancy that would prevent the child from making a rash decision, and the parents from making an uninformed decision. And, Dr. Spack won't perform any permanent change without a psychiatrist agreeing.

Seems pretty safe.

[edit on 23-4-2008 by Rasobasi420]