NOM BLOG

Lesbian Parents Authorize Hormone Blocking to Prevent 11-Year-Old Son's Puberty

 

The UK Daily Mail reports on a situation in California that is grabbing headlines and plenty of media attention:

The lesbian parents of an 11-year-old boy who is undergoing the process of becoming a girl last night defended the decision, claiming it was better for a child to have a sex change when young.

Thomas Lobel, who now calls himself Tammy, is undergoing controversial hormone blocking treatment in Berkeley, California to stop him going through puberty as a boy.

... At age seven, after threatening genital mutilation on himself, psychiatrists diagnosed Thomas with gender identity disorder. By the age of eight, he began transitioning.

This summer, he started taking hormone-blocking drugs, which will stop him from experiencing puberty.

Related -- Wesley J. Smith writes at a First Things blog: "Human Experimentation is the Real Issue in Stopping 'Transsexual' Boy's Puberty."

22 Comments

  1. TC Matthews
    Posted October 5, 2011 at 12:41 pm | Permalink

    Good info Ash. Thanks.

  2. Spunky
    Posted October 5, 2011 at 12:45 pm | Permalink

    @Sam Jones

    Yes, lesbian women have a higher risk for breast cancer, among other things, but it seems that their sexual behavior is not the cause of these problems. See http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10608668 for more details. Family history more likely is the culprit. And NARTH doesn't have the right to accuse anyone of being biased.

    And I shouldn't have used the term "abolish," but rather "converting or repressing homosexuality."

  3. TC Matthews
    Posted October 5, 2011 at 12:51 pm | Permalink

    Do non alcoholics "repress" alcoholism?

  4. Ash
    Posted October 5, 2011 at 12:52 pm | Permalink

    Spunky, NARTH didn't "accuse" them. They produced an actual advertisement which showed that the researchers had an interest in casting conversion therapy in a negative light. You can't get much better than "help us document the damages of homophobic therapies."

  5. Bryce K.
    Posted October 5, 2011 at 1:04 pm | Permalink

    No, TC Matthews, if they did, they wouldn't be alcoholics. But your point? Homosexuality is not alcoholism. Homosexuality in itself does not cause harm. Alcoholism does. There's a difference. Get that through your skull.

  6. Mike Brooks
    Posted October 5, 2011 at 2:04 pm | Permalink

    Actually, Bryce, one can be an alcoholic and not drink, i.e., the condition in and of itself does not cause harm. Similar to homosexuality, though I'd argue that there are inherent psychologically harmful aspects to adopting the homosexual label regardless of whether or not one participates in the behavior associated with the label; psychological issues such as, e.g., not feeling "normal" because one does not choose to participate in the most basic of human functions: reproduction.

  7. Daughter of Eve
    Posted October 5, 2011 at 2:48 pm | Permalink

    "Homosexuality in itself does not cause harm."

    When does it?

  8. Little man
    Posted October 5, 2011 at 3:11 pm | Permalink

    "there isn't a single psycological [sic] thing wrong with me"...

    How would he/she know?... The patient becomes the Psychiatrist.

  9. Louis E.
    Posted October 5, 2011 at 3:30 pm | Permalink

    Alcoholism and homosexual orientation are disorders,drunkenness and same-sex sexual activities are misbehaviors toward which those disorders dispose their victims.

    NARTH is too sympathetic to the "gay" for my liking.

  10. Fedele Razio
    Posted October 5, 2011 at 6:28 pm | Permalink

    How can it be a child is given hormones if he's not illed? Shouldn't the police step in and save this child?

  11. Fedele Razio
    Posted October 5, 2011 at 6:30 pm | Permalink

    Spunky, Narth is providing help to adult people wanting it.

    You just should accept that there is people who has different beliefs, and want different things, than you.

  12. Fedele Razio
    Posted October 5, 2011 at 6:30 pm | Permalink

    "So, if this was a child of a heterosexual couple (faced with the same dilema and chosen path), NOM never brings this up, right????"

    If you are aware of any heterosexual couple who would do something this insane and reprehensible to their own child, please let us know, and call the police.

  13. Spunky
    Posted October 5, 2011 at 8:37 pm | Permalink

    OK, let's clear up a few things.

    @Fedel Razio: I won't have any problem with people seeking conversion therapy. Please see post #26.

    @Ash: Thanks for directing me to the site. I did some more research and confirmed NARTH's statements, so I should not have considered the conversion rates of other studies. Spitzer conducted another study in 2001, but there have been objections on "numerous ethical and methodological grounds" (see the Wikpedia page on conversion therapy), so I didn't feel comfortable just quoting that, either. I also wanted to reference the study NOM is currently promoting, but not much is known about it since only a summary has been released. So I went with what seemed the most established.

    However, while the Shidlo and Schroeder study isn't a good reference for success rates of conversion therapy, it is an excellent source of the type of depression subjects feel after undergoing such a process. I couldn't find an exact statistic on the depression rate, but given the sheer number of mentions in the study, I wouldn't recommend conversion therapy to anyone I knew.

  14. Spunky
    Posted October 5, 2011 at 8:56 pm | Permalink

    @ Sam Jones

    If gay people are trying to prevent infections and disease, conversion therapy seems to be a poor way of accomplishing this. Of course, people can do whatever they want, but there are many practical and direct methods of preventing disease. Some examples:

    1) Don't have unprotected sex. This reduces the risk of contracting AIDS, syphilis, and HPV. Gay men without HPV are *much* less likely to contract anal cancer.
    2) Get regular pap smears to catch cancer early.
    3) Don't engage in anal sex.

    Now, when considering the negative side effects of conversion therapy (which seem to occur a significant amount of the time, certainly more often than the 70-144 in 100,000 occurrence of anal cancer and 522-989 in 100,000 of new HIV infections), I don't see how your assertion is correct. Clearly, conversion therapy hurts people mentally more than it helps prevent disease.

    AND with that I'm done. I've taken this thread far off topic. Feel free to respond, but I'm done posting.

  15. Sam Jones
    Posted October 6, 2011 at 2:23 am | Permalink

    "Now, when considering the negative side effects of conversion therapy (which seem to occur a significant amount of the time, certainly more often than the 70-144 in 100,000 occurrence of anal cancer and 522-989 in 100,000 of new HIV infections), I don't see how your assertion is correct. Clearly, conversion therapy hurts people mentally more than it helps prevent disease."

    Regardless of your opinion of conversion therapy, I still see no reason for the government or anyone else to deny or prevent it for anyone who wishes it, whether it is to get help to get off of drugs, alcohol, homosexuality, or any other vice. That would be a clear violation of the right of self determination.

  16. Bruce
    Posted October 6, 2011 at 11:39 am | Permalink

    Thanks, Spunky, for pointing out the fact that HIV is not the direct cause of being gay. Gardasil is also an option, which effectively eliminates the risk of certain cancers.

  17. Louis E.
    Posted October 6, 2011 at 1:35 pm | Permalink

    Bruce,"being gay" is caused by falling for irrational arguments purporting to justify same-sex sex,which produce the condition in those who are themselves prone to desiring to engage in such acts.It's not a viral condition.The cure is simple realization that anyone's same-sex attraction makes no difference to EVERYONE's obligation to consider only members of the opposite sex if interested in potential sexual partners.

  18. Bruce
    Posted October 6, 2011 at 2:34 pm | Permalink

    I misspoke. I meant to say HIV is not directly caused by being gay. HIV is the result of a virus, which can is transmitted by certain sexual activities with an infected invidiual. Spunky correctly pointed out that gay men (straight people, too, for that matter) can drastically reduce if not effectively eliminate that risk. Being heterosexual doesn't immunize one from the risk of HIV.

    With all due respect, Louis, you seem to understand absolutely nothing about sexual orientation.

  19. Mav
    Posted October 6, 2011 at 3:43 pm | Permalink

    "If you are aware of any heterosexual couple who would do something this insane and reprehensible to their own child, please let us know, and call the police."

    ^ Actually there are tons of loving HETEROSEXUAL parents who support early-age transition for their transgendered children (out of concern for their childrens' psychological well-being).

    And thank God for them.

  20. Sam Jones
    Posted October 6, 2011 at 4:31 pm | Permalink

    "Actually there are tons of loving HETEROSEXUAL parents who support early-age transition for their transgendered children (out of concern for their childrens' psychological well-being). And thank God for them."

    Could you please name them so I can report them to the police, or at least alert child protective services? Because bodily mutilation is NOT the way to deal with mental conditions.

  21. Louis E.
    Posted October 6, 2011 at 6:40 pm | Permalink

    Mav,all parents failing to block "transition" are harming their children equally,regardless of sex or sexual orientation.

    Bruce,you're the one drawing wholly unfounded inferences from the incidental fact of sexual orientation (which has no bearing whatsoever on sexual dimorphism in a species determining opposite-sex sexual activity to be exclusively normative for that species).

  22. P. Edward Murray
    Posted October 8, 2011 at 3:02 am | Permalink

    I thought child abuse was illegal?

    I guess not:(

Comments are temporarily disabled. Please try back later.